Download Linkki julkaisuun - UEF Electronic Publications

UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY
SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES
English language and translation
Eetu Juhani Sironen
RETRANSLATION AND NORMATIVE CHANGES IN FINNISH
TRANSLATION OF NON-FICTION
A comparison of two Finnish translations of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of
Species
MA Thesis
February 2016
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO – UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Tiedekunta – Faculty
Philosophical Faculty
Osasto – School
School of Humanities
Tekijät – Author
Eetu Juhani Sironen
Työn nimi – Title
Retranslation and Normative Changes in Finnish Translation of Non-Fiction
Pääaine – Main subject
English Language and
Translation
Työn laji – Level
Pro gradu -tutkielma
Sivuainetutkielma
Kandidaatin tutkielma
Aineopintojen
tutkielma
x
Päivämäärä –
Date
Sivumäärä – Number of
pages
8.2.2016
63 pages + Appendices
Tiivistelmä – Abstract
This study looks into the normative changes that have taken place in Finnish translation of non-fiction during
the last century. This is done by comparing two translations of the same text, Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of
Species, published in 1913–1917 and 2009. The main goal of the study is to examine whether differences
between the two translations can be attributed to changes in translation norms of non-fiction. This is
accomplished by analysing the research material for various textual features, and comparing the findings with
previous research on translation norms. The present study is based on translation norm research by Toury
(1980), Hermans (1991) and Chesterman (1997).
The theoretical background is based on retranslation research and norm-based approaches to translation
studies. The purpose of the theoretical background is to give a clear, thorough picture of the fields in question,
as well as to justify the need for this research.
The research material consists of selected paragraphs of the two Finnish translations, based on the same
sections of the source text. This study utilizes a twofold research method: a statistical analysis based on a
morphosyntactic analysis of the research material, combined with a close reading of the same material. The
two methods are closely interwoven: the purpose of the statistical method is to uncover differences in the
distribution of various textual features, while the textual analysis aims to exemplify and explain the reasons
behind these differences, linking the findings to various translation norms of non-fiction.
The analysis shows that the two translations differ from each other significantly in the distribution of certain
textual features, including verb infinitive form use, person of verbs, and possessive suffix use. The most
striking changes, however, are related to syntax. The older translation features significantly longer, more
complex sentences, while the newer translation seems to favour shorter sentences and subordinate clauses.
These findings can be reasonably attributed to normative changes that have taken place in Finnish translation
of non-fiction. I have linked the most important findings to four main norms of non-fiction translation:
objectivity, conciseness, readability, and clarity of information.
Avainsanat – Keywords
Retranslation, norms of translation, translation of non-fiction
ITÄ-SUOMEN
YLIOPISTO
Tiedekunta – Faculty
Filosofinen tiedekunta
–
UNIVERSITY
OF
EASTERN
FINLAND
Osasto – School
Humanistinen osasto
Tekijät – Author
Eetu Juhani Sironen
Työn nimi – Title
Retranslation and Normative Changes in Finnish Translation of Non-Fiction
Pääaine – Main subject
Englannin kieli ja
kääntäminen
Työn laji – Level
Pro gradu -tutkielma
Sivuainetutkielma
Kandidaatin tutkielma
Aineopintojen
tutkielma
x
Päivämäärä –
Date
Sivumäärä – Number of
pages
8.2.2016
63 sivua + Liitteet
Tiivistelmä – Abstract
Tämä tutkimus keskittyy suomennetun tietokirjallisuuden muuttuneisiin normeihin viimeisen sadan vuoden
aikana. Tutkimus vertaa kahta suomenkielistä käännöstä Charles Darwinin Lajien synnystä, jotka julkaistiin
vuosina 1913–1917 ja 2009. Tutkimus pyrkii selvittämään, onko käännösten eroja mahdollista selittää
tietokirjallisuuden käännösnormien muutoksella. Tätä varten käännöksiä verrattiin toisiinsa, etsien eroja
erilaisten tekstuaalisten piirteiden esiintymistiheydessä. Näitä eroja verrattiin aikaisempiin käännösnormeja
käsitteleviin tutkimuksiin ja aineistoihin. Tutkimus pohjaa laajalti Touryn (1980), Hermansin (1991) ja
Chestermanin (1997) teorioihin ja ajatuksiin käännösnormien tutkimuksesta.
Teoriaosio pohjautuu uudelleenkääntämisen tutkimukseen ja normintutkimukseen käännöstieteissä.
Teoreettisen osion tarkoituksena on antaa selkeä kokonaiskuva em. alueista, joiden tunteminen on olennaista
tutkimuksen kannalta.
Tutkimusmateriaali koostuu kappaleista kahdesta suomennoksesta, jotka pohjautuvat samaan osaan
lähtötekstiä. Tutkimusmenetelmä on kaksiosainen: ensimmäisenä tuleva tilastollinen analyysi pohjaa
tutkimusaineiston morfosyntaktiseen analyysiin, mitä seuraa lähilukuun perustuva tekstianalyysi. Nämä kaksi
tutkimusmetodia liittyvät läheisesti toisiinsa. Tilastollisen menetelmän tarkoituksena on nostaa esiin eroja
tekstuaalisten piirteiden esiintymistiheyksissä. Tekstianalyysi puolestaan pyrkii selittämään näiden erojen syitä ja
linkittämään löydöksiä tietokirjallisuuden kääntämisen normeihin.
Tutkimustulosten analyysi osoittaa, että käännökset eroavat toisistaan merkittävästi tiettyjen tekstuaalisten
piirteiden esiintymistiheydessä. Näitä ovat mm. verbien infiniittimuotojen käyttö, verbin persoonamuodot sekä
possessiivisuffiksit. Kaikkein merkittävimmät erot liittyvät kuitenkin syntaksiin. Vanhemman käännöksen
virkkeet ovat pitempiä ja virkerakenne on monimutkaisempi kuin uudemmassa käännöksessä, joka suosii
lyhyempiä virkkeitä ja sivulauseita. Nämä löydökset voidaan uskottavasti selittää tietokirjallisuuden
käännösnormien muutoksilla. Olen yhdistänyt tärkeimmät löydökset objektiivisuuden, tiiviyden, luettavuuden
ja tiedon selkeyden normeihin.
Avainsanat – Keywords
Uudelleenkääntäminen, kääntämisen normit, tietokirjallisuuden kääntäminen
Table of contents
1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
2
Non-fiction and retranslation ....................................................................................................... 3
2.1
Retranslation, revision and re-editing ................................................................................... 5
2.2
Why do translations require retranslating? ............................................................................ 5
2.2.1
Ageing of translations .................................................................................................... 6
2.2.2
Reinterpretation of source texts ..................................................................................... 7
2.2.3
Retranslation Hypothesis ............................................................................................... 9
2.2.4
Canonization and economic factors ............................................................................. 10
2.3
3
4
5
How does retranslation affect the text ................................................................................. 11
Norm-based approaches to translation ....................................................................................... 12
3.1
Defining the concept of norm .............................................................................................. 12
3.2
Formation of norms ............................................................................................................. 14
3.3
Categorizations of norms..................................................................................................... 15
3.4
Introducing prevalent norms of translation ......................................................................... 17
3.4.1
General norms of translation ........................................................................................ 17
3.4.2
Norms of non-fiction translation .................................................................................. 19
3.4.3
Studying norms of translation ...................................................................................... 22
Research material and method ................................................................................................... 24
4.1
Research material ................................................................................................................ 24
4.2
Quantitative method ............................................................................................................ 26
4.3
Qualitative method .............................................................................................................. 27
Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 28
5.1
Quantitative analysis ........................................................................................................... 28
5.1.1
Verbs ............................................................................................................................ 30
5.1.2
Nouns ........................................................................................................................... 34
5.1.3
Adjectives..................................................................................................................... 37
5.1.4
Pronouns....................................................................................................................... 39
5.1.5
Conjunctions ................................................................................................................ 42
5.1.6
Clitics ........................................................................................................................... 43
5.1.7
Possessive suffixes ....................................................................................................... 44
5.1.8
Word and sentence length ............................................................................................ 45
5.2
6
Qualitative analysis ............................................................................................................. 47
5.2.1
Changes in syntax ........................................................................................................ 48
5.2.2
Changes in terminology ............................................................................................... 51
5.2.3
Omissions ..................................................................................................................... 54
5.2.4
Visibility of the writer and the reader .......................................................................... 55
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 57
References .......................................................................................................................................... 59
Appendix 1: Excerpts from the old translation ......................................................................................
Appendix 2: Excerpts from the new translation.....................................................................................
1
Introduction
The present study is a case study concerning retranslation, language change and changes of
translation norms in Finnish translations of non-fiction. The aim of this study is to shed light on
how changes in the translation norms of non-fiction manifest themselves on different textual levels.
The initial idea for this research was first conceived two years ago when I was doing my Bachelor’s
thesis on retranslation in the context of literary translation. While doing background research for my
BA Thesis, I was a bit perplexed to find out that almost all of my sources were closely tied to
translations of literature, with next to no mention of non-fiction. This shortcoming has also been
noted by Koskinen and Paloposki (2010: 295), who add that while there are some scholars who
have studied non-fiction, they are a clear minority. Somehow the context of non-fiction has been
almost completely excluded from the field of retranslation, even though retranslation is a common
practice in non-fiction, and is by no means a new field of research in translation studies. Because of
this, they argue, the findings and conclusions of previous retranslation research can only be
extended beyond the sphere of literary translation with caution. As a result, we are left in a place
where we have no clear idea about how retranslations of non-fiction differ from those of literary
translations. This study will try to do what it can to help close this gap.
According to Toury (2004: 208), most of the previous research on translation norms has focused on
literary, philosophical and biblical translation. He has called for norm research on different fields of
translation, since we cannot expect the same conditions to apply to all sorts of translation. This
study aims to examine how norms of translation have changed in the field of non-fiction.
One could argue that because of the accumulative nature of scientific knowledge, there is no need to
retranslate old works of non-fiction; they serve the scientific community their time, after which they
are replaced by new works with (hopefully) more accurate information. However, scientific
literature has its classics, too. There will always be books that will be read for centuries, even
millennia, after their first publishing because of their massive impact on some particular field of
science (a prime example being the works of ancient Greek philosophers). In my personal opinion,
preserving such works has intrinsic value. Because of these factors I consider the subject to be
worth studying.
As noted in a recent publication by the Institute for the Languages in Finland (Suomen kielen
tulevaisuus: 114), English is by far the most common language in international scientific
publishing. According to Paaskoski (2008: 362), we should strive for a situation in which all
1
scientific knowledge is available for everyone instead of just a small elite. Producing up-to-date,
intelligible translations of scientific literature is thus important in order to preserve our democratic
way of life. As noted by the Institute for the Languages in Finland (Suomen kielen tulevaisuus:
133), translating both new works as well as classics of foreign non-fiction is also necessary in order
to ensure that Finnish researchers have a common, functional terminology to share with their
colleagues and discuss their respective areas of study. Thus this study also has an ideological
motive behind it: to draw attention to the importance of translating non-fiction to Finnish.
The purpose of this study is to research how translation norms of Finnish non-fiction have changed
during the last hundred years, as well as the effects these changes have had on translations. This is
done by examining two translations of one non-fiction text, Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of the
Species. The translations in question are the first edition of the first Finnish translation from 1913–
1917 by A.R. Koskimies, and the latest, most up-to-date version from 2009 by Pertti Ranta.
It is hypothesized that there are significant differences between the two translations on various
textual levels, ranging from word class distribution to syntax. It is also hypothesized that these
differences can be explained in terms of translation norms, which have changed during the last
hundred years. The older translation is expected to adhere to the norms of its time, such as being
syntactically loyal to the source text, while the new translation is expected to follow contemporary
translation norms, such as readability, functionality, and fluency of information. The analysis aims
to find out whether the two translations differ from each other in ways that can be attributed to
normative changes in the field of non-fiction translation.
The structure of the study is as follows: section 2 serves as an introduction to non-fiction and the
field of retranslation, exploring some of the most common ideas related to the field, including
causes and reasons for retranslation, effects of retranslation, and determining how retranslations
differ from other translations. Section 3 introduces norm-based approaches to translation studies.
Sections 4 contains descriptions of the research method and material. Section 5 includes the
analysis, with section 6 concluding the study.
2
2
Non-fiction and retranslation
The purpose of this section is to define and introduce two central terms, non-fiction and
retranslation. I will start with the term non-fiction by contrasting it with fiction. The term is
approached from two angles: first, in terms of its contents, second in terms of its function. I will
then move on to introduce some key concepts and ideas of the field of retranslation, as well as
present some of the more common arguments and questions related to this field of study, mainly
concerning the reasons and effects of retranslation.
As Jussila (2006: 12) says, everyone knows what non-fiction is, but it is difficult to define the
concept all-inclusively. The Finnish Association of Non-Fiction Writers (Suomen tietokirjailijat ry)
starts by dividing literature into two main categories: non-fiction and fiction. Non-fiction includes
texts such as newspaper stories, editorials, scientific articles and textbooks, while fiction includes
creative texts such as poems, novels, and plays. According to the association, 80% of all literature
published in Finland is non-fiction. Although only 16% of all publications in Finland are
translations (Kantola 2013: 632), almost a fifth of all publications are written in a foreign language,
mainly English. According to Kantola, this is explained by the high number of scientific
publications written originally in English, aimed at the international scientific community.
The basic difference between non-fiction and fiction is that non-fiction is based on true, real events,
while fiction takes place within the realm of imagination. This definition is a simplification, as the
line is often not that clear-cut: fictive works can, for example, be based on real people and real
events, but involve features that have been created by the author. On the other hand, the entire
notion of value-free, absolute truth has been a matter of debate for millennia, which makes all
definitions of non-fiction based on truth somewhat questionable.
For the purposes of this study, non-fiction is defined as all factual literature, written with the
primary purpose of conveying information, containing information that is public and generally
accepted as true. This study concerns the translations of a non-fiction text, Charles Darwin’s On the
Origin of Species, which could further be categorized as a scientific book concerning evolutionary
biology and natural selection.
As touched upon in the definition above, non-fiction and fiction often have different purposes or
functions. It could be argued that the primary function of non-fiction is to convey information, while
the primary function of fiction is much more elusive and difficult to pin down. Surely there are
various functions of fiction, such as to entertain or to evoke thoughts, even to simulate the human
3
experience. However, all of these feel lacklustre and insufficient: perhaps because there is no single,
primary purpose for fiction. Nevertheless, venturing deeper into this subject matter is beyond the
scope of this study, as this study focuses on non-fiction which has been defined sufficiently.
Koskinen and Paloposki (2010: 294) define a retranslation as a second or later translation of a single
source text that has already been translated into the same target language. Other scholars have
extended this definition to include indirect translations, but for the purposes of this study indirect
translations are excluded from the definition. The reasoning for this is that unlike retranslation,
indirect translation involves an extra language and should be studied and discussed separate from
the subject of retranslation in order to avoid misunderstandings. For the purposes of this study the
term retranslation is defined as two or more translations based on the same source text, written in
the same target language.
In a prototypical setting the translations are temporally separated: a first translation is followed by a
later one (Koskinen and Paloposki 2010: 294). However, Koskinen and Paloposki note that this is
not always the case. There are known cases in which a text has been translated simultaneously by
two translators, resulting in a situation in which it may be difficult or even impossible to classify
either text as the first. Nevertheless, most studies dealing with retranslation tend to focus on the
effects of time. What makes retranslation such a unique research subject is the fact that both source
text and target language always remain the same, which allows the researcher to focus on the
variable of time and the effects it has on the language of the later translation. Because of this,
retranslation offers an excellent platform for studying norms of translation.
Paloposki and Koskinen (2010: 295) note that most previous research on retranslation has
concerned literary translation, especially classics of world literature. There are scholars who have
studied retranslation of non-fiction (see Brisset 2004, Susam-Sarajeva 2006), but they are a clear
minority. Given the fact works of non-fiction form a sizeable part of all publications – at least in
Finland – it is interesting to see how little the subject has been studied in the framework of
retranslation research. This study attempts to help fill this gap in the field. Since non-fiction and
fiction are different types of texts, Paloposki and Koskinen call attention to the fact that most of the
findings and conclusions of previous retranslation research can only be extended beyond the sphere
of literary translation with caution. However, this does not mean that the theoretical tools and terms
that are used to study literary retranslation could not be applied to non-fiction.
4
2.1 Retranslation, revision and re-editing
Although the definition of retranslation given above may at first seem clear-cut, it is not always
easy to determine which texts should be categorized as a retranslations. Vanderschelden (2000: 1–
2), for example, has stated that revision is often seen as the first step towards retranslation. Other
researchers, such as Koskinen and Paloposki (2015: 202–203) have argued that differentiating
between retranslations, new editions, revised editions and other similar categories is not as
straightforward. According to their research, there is no universally agreed definition or standard for
such categories. Some translations get labeled as revised editions, although their text has only
undergone minor corrections to spelling, while other revised editions have in fact been almost
completely retranslated (2015: 153). The degree to which retranslations utilize older translations
also varies greatly: some texts marketed as retranslations are only partly retranslated and borrow
parts or segments of previous translations, while others do not utilize earlier translations at all.
Because of this, Paloposki and Koskinen (2010: 294) call for a close textual reading before deciding
whether a translation can be called a retranslation to begin with.
In the case of the present study, it is evident that the latest translation has clearly been translated
separate from the first one: the translator has changed, almost a hundred years have passed, and the
book was marketed as a retranslation. There are no notable similarities on word choices or sentence
structure, so there is no ground for suspecting the translation of being a modification of the previous
translation instead of a true retranslation.
2.2 Why do translations require retranslating?
According to Koskinen and Paloposki (2015: 68), the need for retranslation is often explained in
one of two ways: either the existing translation is seen to be inaccurate in its portrayal of the
original, or the translation’s language is considered ‘aged’ or inadequate in some other way. It is
important to notice that the former explanation is related to the translation’s relation to the source
text, the latter to the translation’s relation to the target language. Koskinen and Paloposki (2010:
296) list possible causes for retranslating a text, including (alleged) ageing of translations,
increased knowledge of the source text, and deficiency of first translations. Helin (2005: 145–161)
adds changes in language, society, ideology and culture to the list of possible causes. Most
researchers in the field agree that there are often multiple possible causes or reasons for
5
retranslating a text, and often many factors are at play simultaneously. Some of the more common
reasons are introduced in more detail below.
2.2.1
Ageing of translations
One of the most common arguments for retranslating is said to be the ‘ageing’ of translations. In the
context of retranslation, the term ageing refers to the way readers’ perceptions of a text change
when time passes. It is often suggested that for some reason translations – especially first
translations – seem to suffer from ageing, which makes them feel old, archaic or clumsy to readers,
while source texts seem to strive on indefinitely (see Berman 1992, quoted in Deane-Cox 2014: 5).
While popular, such remarks are based on a common misconception. In fact, source texts do change
as well: original texts are rewritten and updated all the time. As Mäkinen (2008: 419) notes, most
contemporary British readers would struggle to understand Hamlet without explanatory annotations
that are included in the modern revised versions. Montgomery (2000: 282) agrees, noting that a vast
majority of the works published prior to the late 1500s have only survived to the present day as
collections of fragments gathered from numerous different sources.
It is not clear where this deep-rooted belief about an unchangeable, static source text originates
from. Koskinen (1995: 10) has noted that the effects of time are often seen to be harder on
translations than on their source texts. Venuti (1992: 3) proposes that we may consider source texts
immune to linguistic, cultural and social change because they are seen as individualistic expressions
of the author, while translations are seen as mere interpretations. It seems that source texts are
considered to be more durable because of their originality. This idea is supported by Bahtin (1987:
15, in Mäkinen 2008: 421), according to whom we have an unconditional tendency to consider
everything original and old intrinsically good and valuable. The reason why translations seem to
age faster than source texts is not necessarily related to differences in the texts at all: it may have
more to do with the way source texts and translations are perceived by readers.
Despite the popular opinion, it can be said that the original is not static, but unstable. Because of
this, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the mechanisms of ageing that affect
translations affect source texts as well. However, this does not necessarily mean that translations
and source texts age at the same speed. Goldschmidt (2001: 407, quoted in Helin: 2005) has
proposed that since translations seem to age and require revisiting more often than source texts,
6
classics of world literature should be rewritten every 100 years and retranslated every 50 years.
Similar propositions have been made by various researchers (see Koskinen and Paloposki 2015).
To complicate matters further, some translations seem to age faster than others (Sorvali and
Häkkinen 2007: 380). In some cases this can be explained by canonization: the first translation may
sometimes be preferred simply because it is the first one, the one readers are familiar with and
accustomed to. Another possible reason proposed by Sorvali and Häkkinen is related to the status of
the translator: some Finnish translators, for example, have been closely involved in the development
of Finnish literature, which has led to their language being considered ‘normative’ later on.
2.2.2
Reinterpretation of source texts
Human beings interpret all phenomena from their own subjective standpoints. Every interpretation
is tied to time and place, and all interpretations have their roots in our subjective view of the world.
That being said, no man is an island, and there are intersubjective similarities between our
standpoints. Deane-Cox (2014: 192) has suggested that the reason we retranslate does not lie in the
deficiency of the translation, but in the impermanence of the source text, which allows for a new
interpretation at each new reading. Different readers – and translators – can lift certain elements of a
text to the foreground, which will result in differing interpretations.
As time passes, our interpretations of texts are prone to change. Major events and ideas of world
history, such as the World Wars, theory of relativity, theory of evolution, feminism or the
development of the Internet have all had massive impact on the way we view the world. Each
generation has more knowledge about the surrounding world than the previous one, which allows
for a steady change in the way we interpret the world. The idea of each generation creating its own
interpretations is common in all literary discourse (Koskinen and Paloposki 2015: 203), also in
literary translation. As Koskinen and Paloposki state, retranslation is, after all, a very concrete form
of reinterpretation.
However, translations are not merely passive voices that reflect their surroundings. As Lefevere
(1992: 13) notes, both writers and rewriters (the notion of rewriter includes translators in general)
can choose to either adapt to the system or go against it. They are active agents, and have the power
to go against the constraints of a system, for example by reading works of literature in different
ways. They can choose to actively look for different interpretations. Rewriters have the power to
rewrite a work in such a way that it does not fit to the dominant practice or ideology. In other
7
words, translations can also shape the way we interpret the world by challenging pre-existing,
conventional ideas. Even-Zohar (2004: 200–202) has tackled such ideas in his polysystem theory,
which suggests that literature can be viewed as a “system of systems”, consisting of various smaller
systems such as translated literature, non-fiction, fiction, and so forth. According to Even-Zohar, all
literary polysystems are in a constant state of transformation. He notes that a literary system is weak
when it is first conceived, and has to borrow from other, more established literary systems via
translation in order to develop further. In Even-Zohar’s view, a young literature cannot produce
texts of all imaginable genres in its infancy: it takes time for young systems to develop to the point
when they are ready to produce authentic texts of their own. The system of translated literature can
therefore be thought to shape the entire polysystem of literature, which in turn shapes the way we
view the rest of the world. When a text is later retranslated, the changes that have taken place in the
literary polysystem affect the outcome of the new translation.
Not all rewriting is progressive and forward-looking. As André Lefevere (1992: 14) notes, the
power-holders of the literary system – critics, reviewers, teachers and translators – can also repress
texts that oppose the current poetics too harshly. Lefevere (1992: 19) writes that we often rewrite
texts to bring them in line with new, dominant poetics of our time. This stance towards rewriting
and retranslation is conservative in nature, as it opposes progress and promotes conformity. This
idea is clearly evident in norm-based approaches to translation, which will be discussed in more
detail in section 3.
Theoretical advances in translation studies can also affect the entire literary polysystem, and may
therefore provide a demand for retranslation. The field of translation studies and ideas about
translation in general have developed immensely during the last hundred years. Introduction of new
ideas about different kinds of equivalence, functionality, and skopos theory have changed the way
translators think and go on about their work.
Changes in political ideologies can have direct effects on retranslation. A famous example from
Finnish translation of fiction is related to George Orwell’s famous dystopian novel 1984 (see
Markkanen: 1999). Parts of the first Finnish translation were censored because they drew parallels
between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Because Finland had a delicate political relationship
with the Soviet Union at the time, the paragraphs were omitted from the first translation (ibid.). The
newer translation has not undergone such censorship.
8
The reasons for retranslation that we have discussed so far are general in nature, and can be thought
to affect all sorts of texts, albeit to different extent. There is one more reason that is especially
relevant regarding retranslations of non-fiction, which is the introduction of new knowledge and
scientific progress. As Ranta (2009: 420–421) notes in his epilogue of the new translation, many of
the species described in Origin of the Species have been renamed since Darwin’s days. The reason
for renaming is based on increased knowledge about the genealogy of the species in question. Such
information was not available to A.R. Koskimies when he worked on his first translation.
Furthermore, Ranta notes that every species of birds and mammals has an official Finnish name.
In retranslation, this increase in knowledge is often discussed using a metaphor of hot and cold
translations (see Vanderschelden 2000: 8–11). A first translation is considered ‘hot’ since it takes
place soon after the source text is published. Retranslations, on the other hand, are considered
‘cold’, since they have a better overall view into the source text: a cold retranslation can take into
account the reception and criticism of the first translation, which may help to avoid the same
pitfalls. In other words, a ‘cold’ retranslation has more context and knowledge about the source text
to achieve a better, more suitable rendition of the source text.
2.2.3
Retranslation Hypothesis
Perhaps the most well-known attempt to explain why retranslation is needed is the Retranslation
Hypothesis (from now on referred to as RH), based on Antoine Berman’s theories about
retranslation. RH in its simplified form suggests that first translations are always domesticating in
style, therefore requiring retranslation (Berman 1990, in Koskinen & Paloposki 2010: 295).
According to Bensimon (1990: ix, in Paloposki & Koskinen 2001: 27), this is because their primary
purpose is to integrate one culture to another, and to ensure that the original text is well received in
the target culture.
RH has been researched extensively, but the results have not been clear: some studies seem to
validate the hypothesis (see Paloposki 2002), while others point to the opposite direction (see
Oittinen 1997). Paloposki and Koskinen (2001: 29–32) have noted that a ‘domesticating phase’
often takes place in the development of a young literary system. However, even if all the
translations published during such a phase turned out to be domesticating in style, one cannot
assume that domestication is a universal feature of first translations (ibid.). This ‘weak’ formulation
of RH does not make any universal claims about the nature of first translations (Koskinen and
9
Paloposki 2015: 84). Paloposki and Koskinen (2001: 29–32) conclude that while RH may apply in
certain circumstances, it does not result in all translations following the same formula. Moreover,
Paloposki and Koskinen (2001: 28) have suggested that perhaps only domesticating first
translations suffer from ageing, while non-domesticating first translations do not (at least not to the
same extent). I doubt that a translation – or any text for that matter – can avoid ageing, as language
is in constant change. It might take fifty or five hundred years for a text to become ‘aged’ in the
eyes of future readers, but it will inevitably happen. The real question is how fast ageing appears,
and what are the underlying mechanisms of ageing like.
Koskinen and Paloposki (2015: 63) have noted that discussion concerning retranslation, especially
RH, often seems to take a negative stance towards first translations, which are seen as inadequate in
some way. This is understandable, as the idea of a lacking first translation is intuitively understood
as a strong reason for retranslation. After all, if the first translation was good enough, why
retranslate? As the discussion above hopefully demonstrates, such a view – although intuitively
tempting – severely underestimates the complexity of the phenomenon of retranslation. Moreover,
the idea seems to have an underlying teleological tinge to it, as if literature was constantly
‘developing’ or ‘proceeding towards perfection’.
2.2.4
Canonization and economic factors
In addition to language ageing, reinterpretation and retranslation hypothesis, there are more
mundane reasons for retranslation. As Koskinen (2008: 336) notes, reprints of literary classics are
steady sellers, therefore being a safe bet for publishers looking to make a profit – they are, after all,
profit-seeking enterprises. Although Koskinen is speaking of reprints, the same reasoning has been
found to apply to retranslation as well (Koponen 2009).
Paloposki and Koskinen (2010: 295) argue that retranslating and literary canon formation are
mutually dependent, since retranslations further bolster the status of classics, which in turn tends to
result in new retranslations. Similar ideas have been presented by Lefevere (1992: 20–21), who has
argued that institutions such as universities (and the educational system in general) keep canonized
works alive by teaching them in classes. He sharply notes that this system guarantees “a substantial
turnover for the paperback lists of institutions publishing books”.
10
2.3 How does retranslation affect the text
So far we have discussed the definition of retranslation, as well as some reasons for retranslation.
However, we have not yet discussed how retranslated texts differ from previous translations. This
section will give some examples of changes retranslations introduce to texts, based on previous
research.
According to Koskinen and Paloposki (2010: 295), retranslations have provided useful data for
numerous research questions in translation studies, ranging from translation norms and strategies to
language standardization and the effect of political or cultural changes. They note that there is
growing interest in finding out what exactly is happening in retranslating. Some examples of
possible changes are exemplified below. The examples are based on previous research, and their
purpose is to give a rough idea about the ways in which retranslations and first translations may
differ. However, it is important to keep in mind that there are as many possible features of
retranslation as there are reasons for it: the examples given below are therefore only guiding in
nature. Similar results are not necessarily expected from this study.
Koskinen and Paloposki (2001: 29–32) have examined the Finnish translations and retranslations of
Oliver Goldsmith’s The Vicar of Wakefield, and One Thousand and One Nights. Their examination
revealed that the first Finnish translation of The Vicar of Wakefield is much more literal: it is closer
to the source text both syntactically and lexically. The second translation, on the other hand, is more
fluent and idiomatic, at least partly because it utilizes partitive cases instead of pronoun-structures.
In the case of One Thousand and One Nights, lexical variation was found to be greater in some of
the later translations, as some of the concepts have become more familiar. Translating the word
turban, for example, has been earlier translated simply as lakki (hat), later as turbaani (2001: 32).
Valtonen (2010) has studied the Finnish translations of Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë in her
MA thesis. Her study (2010: 35–45) revealed that the terminology of the older translations is more
archaic, resorting to words such as mamelukki, aspi, and kerokorvainen, which are used in modern
Finnish. Other findings that separate the old translation from the new one include use of compound
words which are nowadays written as two or more separate words (sensijaan instead of sen sijaan),
changes in spelling (yardi instead of jaardi), differences in case use (omenain instead of omenien or
omenoiden), and changes in syntax. Valtonen (2010: 59) notes that although the newer translation
has opted for some archaic idioms and expressions as well, for the most part it tends to follow
modern language norms.
11
3
Norm-based approaches to translation
It is generally agreed that the concept of norm was introduced to translation studies by Gideon
Toury (Hermans 1999b: 60–75, Chesterman 1997: 63) as an alternative viewpoint that changed the
focus from equivalence to translators’ decisions. As Toury (2004: 210) has stated, the contradiction
between traditional concepts of equivalence and norm-based approaches can only be resolved by
postulating that norms determine what kind of equivalence is manifested by actual translations.
Study of translation norms has been an integral part of translation studies since the cultural shift in
the 1980s (Chesterman 2007: 357). Different scholars have defined and approached the central
concept of norm in different ways, some of which are presented below in more detail.
It is worth noting that norms should not be mistaken with their formulation or codification, which
limit the individual’s choices (Hermans 1999b: 74). This notion is seconded by Toury (1999: 15),
who states that a verbalised formation of a norm is not the norm itself, merely a reflection of it.
Although this study concerns norms of translation, it is descriptive and non-normative in nature.
Moreover, norms act here as explanatory hypotheses, not as foolproof facts of translation.
3.1 Defining the concept of norm
Toury (1980: 51) writes that translation, like any other behavioural activity, is subject to constraints
of various degrees. In his view, every constraint imaginable can be placed on a scale between two
extremes: absolute rules and pure idiosyncrasies. What is left in the middle ground between the two
extremes are norms of different strengths. Toury defines norms as the translation of general, shared
values and ideas of a community into performance-instructions which are acquired during the
socialization process. Their primary function is to act as shared criteria of evaluation for actual
instances of behaviour. Norms tell us what is right or wrong, adequate or inadequate, appropriate or
inappropriate, and so forth.
According to Toury (1999: 16), the relation between norms, rules and idiosyncrasies can be
explained in terms of sanctions. Rules are stronger than norms because breaking them results in
sanctions. A norm, on the other hand, may be broken, but such action can cause sanctions. Breaking
the weaker idiosyncrasies do not result in sanctions. Rules and idiosyncrasies could well be
redefined in terms of norms as “more objective norms” and “more subjective norms” respectively
(ibid.). Chesterman (1999: 91) points out that for some reason Toury does not include conventions
12
on his scale. Chesterman also criticizes the broadness of Toury’s definition of norm, stating that we
should “not make it so general that it loses its usefulness.” (ibid.).
Theo Hermans (1991: 161) defines norms as “constraints on behaviour, foreclosing certain options
while suggesting others”. Hermans (1999b: 80) also points out that the term has a double meaning:
on one hand it refers to regularity of behaviour, on the other hand the underlying mechanisms
behind such regularity. In short, “The content of a norm is a notion of what is ‘proper’ or ‘correct’
(Hermans 1997: 84).”
A similar view is offered by Chesterman (2007: 357), who agrees that the differentiating factor
between norms, laws and conventions is the degree of restraint they place on the translator.
Breaking a law results in sanctions and is always faced with heavy criticism, while breaking the
more vague conventions does not result in criticism. As with Toury, Chesterman’s norms stand
somewhere in the middle. He draws focus on the evolutionary function of norms (1997: 55), which
is to make life easier by regulating behaviour and maintaining order. However, Chesterman (2007:
358) also points out that a norm-breaking translation can also be received with admiration,
sometimes leading to the creation of a new norm. A good example of this is translator Pertti
Saarikoski’s use of Helsinki slang in his translation of J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye.
Although it did not necessarily override the pre-existing norm of using standard language,
Saarikoski’s translation was admired and is still being discussed today.
It is not easy to determine whether a certain constraint should be considered a rule, a norm or a
convention. In some cases the borderlines between different kinds of constraints are bound to
remain diffuse and relative (Toury 1980: 52). According to Toury this is not a problem, since the
purpose of norm theory is not to offer absolute truths. In his view, the concept of norm is best seen
as a tool for studying and describing behaviour (ibid.). Hermans (1999a: 51–52) shares this view,
stating that norm-based approaches to translation always view the translator as an active decision
maker. He, too, emphasizes the potential of norms as an analytical tool in the study of translation
history and ideologies. Furthermore, norms should not be thought of as causative explanations to
features found in texts (Hermans 1999a: 57). Instead, the entire process of translation has to be
viewed heuristically, using norms as guidance when trying to understand the both the translation
and translator.
According to Hermans (1999a: 57), adopting a norm-based point of view allows us to weigh other
possible decisions the translator could have made at each step and the reasons behind the final
13
choices. Using the concept of norms allows us to ask questions not only about what is on the page,
but about what could have been on the page. However, determining which factor has influenced the
translator at each particular decision is always bound to remain speculation, since the observer
always constructs the case from his own viewpoints.
Some researchers (see Chesterman 2007: 363) consider the term itself to be vague in meaning and
bound to a theoretical level: a norm is always just an assumption. Norms have also been criticized
for being too abstract to be useful. If norms are defined by their general acceptance, exactly how
generally accepted do they have to be? Norms are often criticized for promoting circular reasoning:
when a regularity is found, a researcher can simply postulate a norm, which in turn will explain the
regularity. Moreover, individual works are always a complex sum of decisions affected by various
norms, and different readers may project different norms on them, resulting in differing
interpretations.
Chesterman points out (2007: 359) that some researchers seem to postulate that every linguistic
regularity in a translation can be interpreted as proof of an existing norm. He disagrees with this
view, as regularity can always be a result of some external factor, such as cognitive constraints,
time and task constraints, incompetency, or chance.
3.2 Formation of norms
When two or more translational options are possible, the translator has to make a choice between
them. Since humans have an innate flair for order and stability (Toury 2012: 62–63), they tend to
make choices that are agreed upon and accepted by other members of the group. Agreement is
reached through a process of negotiation, with or without the use of language. These negotiations
lead to the establishment of conventions (ibid.).
Toury (2012: 63–64) writes that conventions are not specific or binding enough to guide or assess
action. Because of this, newcomers often struggle to acquire social conventions. Toury suspects that
there is a missing link at work here, which the notion of norms may be able to provide (ibid.). As
previously stated, Toury defines norms as general values and ideas shared by a community
translated into performance-instructions. Although norms themselves are not strategies of action,
they give rise to such strategies (Toury 2012: 63), while also serving as criteria of evaluating
instances of action (Toury 1980: 51). According to Toury (1999: 15), norms do not have to be
written down or publicly declared; they can remain implicit. However, implicit or even unconscious
14
norms have to retain the possibility of being verbalized. In other words, a norm that cannot be
described in words is not a norm.
A similar idea is proposed by Hermans (1999b: 74), who states that translational choices are
affected by certain demands by the source text and the audience of the translation. When these
choices are made again and again, patterns will start to emerge as some choices are opted for more
often than others. In time, both readers and translators start to consider a certain convention the
correct or standard way to act. In other words, a convention has become the norm (Hermans 1999b:
81). This mechanism allows useful, often-used conventions to turn into norms as they become
fixed. However, even a fixed norm is not permanent. Norms are historical entities and change over
time, and some are more durable than others (Hermans 1999b: 74). This is especially true in
situations where two or more competing norms exist.
Chesterman (1997) has discussed translation norms in terms of memetics. Oxford English
Dictionary defines meme as “a cultural element or behavioural trait whose transmission and
consequent persistence in a population, although occurring by non-genetic means (esp. imitation),
is considered as analogous to the inheritance of a gene.” He writes that all ideas (including norms)
concerning translation can be thought of as translation memes, some of which fail while others
strive on (Chesterman 1997: 19). If a translation meme survives long enough in the meme-pool it
can become a norm. There are clear parallels between this approach and the previously introduced
ones by Toury and Hermans.
3.3 Categorizations of norms
This subchapter will introduce two categorizations of norms by Gideon Toury and Andrew
Chesterman, both of which will be applied in the present study.
Toury (1980: 53–55) divides norms into three main categories: initial norms, preliminary norms,
and operational norms. The first category, initial norms, is related to the relation between source
and target cultures. According to Toury, the very first step a translator has to take is to decide
whether he wants to subject himself to the source text and culture, resulting in a more literal
translation, or to the target culture, which results in more ‘user-friendly’ translation. Using Venuti’s
terms, we could also speak of foreignizing and domesticating translations. Toury emphasizes that
the word initial refers to the logical priority over preliminary and operational norms, since initial
norms are paradigmatic (ibid.). In other words, the translator has to decide which initial norms to
15
follow before other norm categories become applicable, as they are dependent on the initial norms.
The choice of initial norms can also be thought of as choosing the “norm set” of either source or
target culture (Toury 2012: 80). Norms concerning the purity of a target language can be considered
initial norms, as they have an ideological background and are related to the choice between
foreignizing and domesticating a text (Chesterman 2007: 361).
The second category, preliminary norms, direct the general translation policy (Toury 1980: 53).
This category includes norms about which books or genres are deemed worth translating, who is
allowed to translate, and whether translating through an intermediate language is allowed. These
questions are related to the social and cultural aspects of translation (ibid.). A common example of a
preliminary norm – at least in Finnish – is that translations of fiction ought to be based on the
source text, not another translation (Chesterman 2007: 360). Indirect translation should therefore be
avoided when translating works of fiction.
The third category, operational norms, direct actual choices made during translation (Toury 1980:
54). This category includes various textual norms that govern the use of paratext, omissions and
insertions, changing the syntactic structure, etc.
Chesterman (1997: 64–70), on the other hand, divides norms into two main categories: expectancy
norms and professional norms. The first category, expectancy norms, includes target language
readers’ expectations of what a certain translation should contain, a general consensus about
translation tradition in the target culture. Since readers can have expectations about all kinds of
things, this category covers a wide range of phenomena. Expectancy norms are primarily validated
by their own existence, but to some extent also by norm authorities, such as translators, teachers,
and critics.
The second category, professional norms, includes norms that regulate the translation process itself
(Chesterman 1997: 67). The source of such norms are “the professionals”, i.e. competent
professional translators, whose professionality in turn is validated by others belonging to the same
group. Chesterman argues that if a translator is generally accepted as a professional, the choices he
makes are considered norm-setting. The problem with this idea is that translation as a profession is
not generally regulated, at least not in Finland: anyone who wants to can act as a translator, even if
they do not possess sufficient skills required for the profession. In practice it is difficult to
determine who is competent enough to be considered a professional, as ’general acceptance’ is
practically impossible to measure. Chesterman (1997: 68) acknowledges this, stating that while
16
professional norms can be stated in their absolute form, they can only be followed “as far as
possible”.
There are three professional norms (Chesterman 1997: 68–70): the accountability norm, the
communication norm, and the relation norm. The first norm, accountability norm, is ethical in
nature. It concerns the demands of loyalty to the original author, the commissioner, the translator
himself, the reader, and any other relevant party. A professional translator is accountable for his
work to all of the previously mentioned parties. The second norm, communication norm, is a social
norm, related to the translator’s central role in optimizing communication between all involved
parties. The third and final professional norm is the relation norm, which concerns maintaining
appropriate relevant similarity between the texts. It is up to the translator to judge which features of
each text are the most important or relevant ones.
This study will use both of the previously mentioned categorizations when necessary. In addition to
these pre-existing categorizations, new ones will be postulated if deemed necessary.
3.4 Introducing prevalent norms of translation
This section will introduce some norms of translation that have been prevalent in Finnish
translation. Section 3.4.1 introduces norms that can be found in all kinds of translation, while
section 3.4.2 introduces some norms that can be said to be more characteristic of non-fiction. The
norms introduced in this section are purposefully abstract or general in nature, such as “one ought to
favour syntactically correct language at the expense of style”, compared to more concrete textual
norms, such as “one ought to avoid semicolons”.
Toury (2004: 210) notes that textual-linguistic norms of translation may be identical to the norms of
non-translated texts of the same genre, but such relationship should not be taken as granted. I will
try to draw attention to this fact in the analysis whenever possible.
3.4.1
General norms of translation
Some of the norms that have been prevalent in Finnish translation since its birth are still adhered to
to some extent, while others have evolved further. Although there are some genre-specific norms,
most of the more general norms can affect various genres. Certain translation norms that are
especially characteristic to non-fiction will be introduced in the following section.
17
Following Toury’s categorization, Chesterman (2007: 360) categorizes domestication as a very
prevalent initial norm during the early development of Finnish translation. Texts were brought
closer to the target language to make them easier to approach for the readers. Although
domestication is often given as an example of a norm of translation, Paloposki (2000: 26) has
offered a contrasting view. She argues that the tendency to domesticate was not necessarily
considered the correct way to translate. In her view, domestication was a result of the surrounding
circumstances: written Finnish was still in its infancy, and developing it further seems to have
tipped the scales in favour of domestication. Reaching uneducated people unaccustomed to reading
was also a major factor when choosing to domesticate. Koskinen and Paloposki (2015: 70–71) have
also noted that the division between domesticating and foreignizing translations is not black and
white, as it is not uncommon for translators to utilize both strategies within a single translation.
It can be said with relative safety that the more knowledge the translator has about a foreign culture,
more accurate the translation can be. The same principle can be applied to readers as well: as Helin
(2005: 155) notes, when knowledge of a source culture expands, the average reader can be expected
to tolerate more foreign concepts. The average modern Finnish reader knows more about the
English-speaking culture than his fellow countrymen from a hundred years ago. As Koskinen and
Paloposki (2015: 82) point out, few Finns travelled to Great Britain a hundred years ago, but
nowadays it is quite ordinary. Additionally, English culture is now more well-known thanks to
advancements in information technology, such as the Internet, TV-series and movies. Increases in
cultural knowledge have made domestication less necessary in Finnish translation, but it is still
popular in dominant target cultures, such as North-American translation (Puurtinen 2008: 90).
Closely related to the norm of domestication is the norm of linguistic purism, which was prevalent
in the early development Finnish literature (Chesterman 2007: 360). Similar ideas were common in
other European countries as well, and were closely related to the rise of nationalist ideology
(Kolehmainen 2009). Finnish language was considered pure, which lead to translators avoiding loan
words and calques. Letters and sounds that were not found in Finnish, such as b, c, f, q, x, and z
were shunned as non-Finnish. Although the general opinion has watered down since the beginning
of the 20th century, remnants of this norm can still be seen in current discussion about the Finnish
language: there are still many who think language change is inherently negative (Chesterman 2007:
360). Similar attitudes were faced in a survey by Korhonen and Lappalainen (2013). Their survey
revealed that language specialists are not as concerned about language change as laymen are.
18
Features that concerned the respondents include the growing influence of English and increased use
of loan words and calques.
Following Toury’s categorization, the norms of domestication and linguistic purism fall under the
category of initial norms. In opposition to these very general-level norms, Toury has the category of
operational norms, which are more closely related to the production of a translation. The norms in
this category are more concrete and well-defined, such as whether we allow changes in syntax, use
of omissions and additions, use of paratext, and so forth. Operational norms are highly genrespecific: translating a news text and a poem, for example, differ greatly in terms of which textuallinguistic norms are adhered to. It is also important to note that the choice of operational norms is
dependent on the initial norms. If a Finnish translator chooses to follow the norm of domesticating,
they would most likely follow the operational norms of the Finnish text-type, not the foreign
equivalent.
3.4.2
Norms of non-fiction translation
There are some norms that can be said to be characteristic of translating non-fiction. These include
the norms of specialist translators, readability and clarity over style, and accurate terminology.
Montgomery (2000: 253) notes there is a deeply embedded belief in the society that the transfer of
scientific discourse is an unimportant event, comparable to passing coins from one hand to another.
This is by no means the truth, he continues: scientific discourse is not universal, but closely
dependent on culture and language. Even mathematical texts, which are often considered the most
universal expressions of science, take place in a linguistic context: equations and formulas are
oftentimes accompanied by extensive written explanations and discussion (Montgomery 2000:
254).
According to Aho and Mänttäri (2007a: 308), translators of non-fiction were relatively free to
modify, omit or add sections of the source texts during the formative years of Finnish literature in
the beginning of the 19th century. By the early 20th century this trend had reversed. By then, the
main principles of what non-fiction translations should be like were generally agreed upon. For
example, extensive modification of source texts was not generally allowed. Aho and Mänttäri state
that the principles of non-fiction translation of the early 20th century were similar to the ones we
acknowledge nowadays.
19
By the early 20th century norms concerning correct language use were also well-established. Aho
and Mänttäri (2007a: 308) note that certain criticisms from 1889 reveal that although Finnish words
were preferred, foreign words were starting to become accepted. By 1904 the language used in
translations was already clearly modern Finnish, differences being mainly stylistic or rhetorical. By
then foreign words were used extensively, especially when contrasted to the puristic tendency of the
19th century.
According to a study by Tirkkonen-Condit (1985: 12), the problems of translating argumentative
texts are not related to linguistic proficiency, but difficulties in comprehension and interpretation of
the source text. Similar difficulties can be found in all non-fiction, which is by definition focused on
conveying information accurately. The translator has to be constantly on his toes to avoid distorting
the argument, which requires a deep, profound understanding of the subject at hand. In other words,
the translator has to thoroughly understand texts from highly specialized fields of expertise in order
to successfully translate them.
Perhaps due to such research, the initial norm governing the choice of translator in non-fiction has
changed. According to Aho and Mänttäri (2007b: 565), translators of the past were often first and
foremost translators who worked for the publishers. Being experts in matters of translations and
language, they often lacked expertise in the subject matter of the translated text. Montgomery
(2000: 305) notes that a scientific translator was expected to be able to work on any field necessary,
ranging from applied physics to biology. Nowadays translators are more specialized: Montgomery
(2000: 302) has noted that translators of non-fiction tend to specialize in a limited number of fields
and utilize expert advisors more and more. The main reason for this seems to be the incredible pace
at which technical terminology evolves, which makes it difficult for translators to translate from
multiple fields of expertise simultaneously.
Jääskeläinen (2006: 240) notes that many contemporary translators of non-fiction – at least in
Finland – are in fact primarily experts in the fields of science they are translating, not experts in
translation. As noted by Paloposki and Riikonen (2013: 599), this is also reflected in translation
criticism of translated non-fiction, which often focuses on term choices and the role of expertise in
translating. I have called this the norm of specialist translators. Some might argue that favouring
specialists of the field instead of professional translations may result in clumsier translation, since
the translators are no longer exclusively experts of language and communication. While this may
hold some truth to it, Aho and Mänttäri (2007b: 565) also remind that the opposite has been known
20
to happen: sometimes a translator has been known to have lots of goodwill while lacking the skills
required to comprehend the source text. Moreover, even though these ‘specialist translators’ do not
necessarily have formal education in translation, it does not mean that they are not qualified or
competent enough to translate.
This tendency for specialization does not limit itself to translators. All active agents in the field of
non-fiction, such as translation agencies and publishing houses, seem to be affected, albeit to
varying degrees. Montgomery (2000: 302) writes that there are entire translation agencies focused
on one specific field of expertise, such as biomedicine. Furthermore, Toury (2004: 209) states that
publishing houses with a focus on non-fiction as opposed to general publishing are becoming more
common. This is noticeable in Finland, too: some small publishing houses such as Gaudeamus,
Vastapaino and Terra Cognita have specialized in scientific publishing. This demand for
specialization is related to changes in the preliminary norm of translation policy.
Leikola (2013: 429) has noted that conserving the original writer’s style is not usually considered
important when translating works of natural sciences; a stance that is strictly opposite to the way
translations of literature are commonly treated. Modern-day norms allow toning down stylistic or
idiosyncratic language use in translations of non-fiction in order to improve the readability and
clarity of information, which are valued over style (ibid.). The same idea is presented by Helin
(2005: 159), who states that the accuracy of the target text can be deemed more important than the
identity of the text. Riikonen (2000: 56) agrees, although he notes there are exceptions to the rule:
English translations of Freud’s works by James Strache, for example, have been called more
scientific or objective in style. Riikonen further adds that Finnish translation criticism of non-fiction
has traditionally focused on terminology and scientific accuracy.
Korpela (2004: 7.3) maintains that the purpose of a translation of non-fiction is to express the
content and meaning of the original as clearly as possible in the target language, without omissions
or changes. However, works which are considered classics in their field – such as Origin of the
Species – can be treated differently (Leikola 2013). Therefore it is reasonable to expect that
Darwin’s distinctive style of writing might be treated more conservatively than other scientists’
during the process of translation.
However, the notion of ‘clarity of information’ is not as straightforward as it might initially seem.
Mäntynen (2012: 387–388) notes that a translator of non-fiction is torn to different directions: on
one hand, his choices have to be faithful to the source text, but on the other hand also abide by the
21
conventional discourse of the target language scientific field. In other words, the conventions of
Finnish non-fiction have to be followed. According to Mäntynen, it is quite common for many
people to be involved in the translation process: in addition to the translator and the publishing
editor, specialists in the field may be consulted. The final translation solutions are the result of
negotiations between these different experts, all of whom bring their own language ideologies to the
table.
On a textual level, word choices are to be as unambiguous as possible, with a focus on precise
terminology. However, Korpela (2004: 7.3) also writes that apparent terminological precision can
hinder understanding depending on the target audience. The translator should always take the reader
into account in word or term choices. According to Korpela (ibid.), it is often better to use
comprehensible words in conjunction with syntactically complex expressions, even if it requires
sacrificing the syntax of the source text. Nevertheless, it is generally acknowledged that
terminology in non-fiction should be as accurate as possible.
3.4.3
Studying norms of translation
So far we have defined what a norm is, talked about their formation, introduced categorizations, as
well as given some examples of norms. However, we have not yet discussed how norms are studied.
This section will present different ways of studying norms based on the works of Toury and
Chesterman.
Toury (2012: 87) states that we can see effects of norms in the production of translations. However,
in doing so we are not witnessing the norms themselves, merely instances of norm-governed
behavior, or the end-products of norms. In other words, we see the result of norms, which affected
the translator at the time of translation. In order to get a clear picture of the actual norm itself, we
have to reconstruct it (Toury 2012: 88). This can be achieved by using data from either textual or
extratextual sources. Textual sources include the translations themselves. In Toury’s words these
are the primary products of translation norms. Extratextual sources, on the other hand, include
semi-theoretical or critical formulations of norms, statements by different agents involved in the
translation process, translation commentaries, criticisms, and so on. These Toury calls the byproducts of the existence of norms. Toury is sceptical about extratextual sources, and advises us
“never to take normative pronouncements at face-value” (Toury 2012: 88, emphasis in the
original), as they can be partial, biased or even deliberately misleading. Chesterman (1997: 57) does
22
not share the same scepticism, pointing out that norms are partly validated by normative
pronouncements by norm authorities, partly by their very existence.
Toury (2012: 89) suggests we should study both textual and extra-textual sources in order to get a
clear, coherent picture of a norm. To do this, we must examine the translation and look for patterns
of translational behaviour, from which we can attempt to reconstruct a norm. After reconstructing a
norm from patterns emerging from the text, we may compare the reconstructed norm to normative
pronouncements found in extratextual sources. If we can show that there exists a clear connection
between the patterns emerging from the translation and normative pronouncements found in
extratextual sources, the normative pronouncement gains credibility. With that being said, Toury
has no answer to the question of how often a pattern has to occur in order to be considered regular:
the only rule of thumb he offers is “the bigger – the better” (Toury 2012: 81). He also reminds that a
translator cannot be expected to remain completely systematic throughout a translation, as his
motivation and decision-making can be unevenly distributed throughout the text (Toury 2012: 89).
Toury comments on a statistical model for studying norms, developed by sociologist Jackson
(1960). Jackson’s model is based on measuring the ratio between the intensity and tolerance
towards a certain norm. However, Toury seems sceptical about adopting Jackson’s rigorous,
distribution-based model for the study of translation norms. Instead, he suggests we should be
content with our intuition, which allows us to make ‘educated guesses’ about norms based on past
experience and knowledge.
In addition to the ways of studying norms suggested by Toury, Chesterman (1997: 81) draws
attention to the use of parallel corpora in norm research. Parallel corpora enable us to examine and
contrast translations to original texts. Parallel corpora allow, for example, the comparison of Finnish
translations of English user manuals to user manuals written originally in Finnish. This in turn
makes it possible to determine whether the two categories of texts differ from each other in terms of
lexical density, lexical variety, word length, or any other conceivable textual feature. This method is
similar to the one used in the present study, although I have not used the word corpus to refer to my
material.
23
4
Research material and method
Section 4.1 below introduces the research material of the present study. The research method of the
present study is a combination of two methods: a quantitative, statistical analysis, described in
section 4.2, combined with a qualitative textual analysis of the source material, described in section
4.3. Because of this twofold division, the analysis is likewise presented in two sections.
As pointed out by both Toury (2012: 88–89) and Chesterman (2007: 363), a normative
pronouncement is not a prerequisite to the study of norms. It is also possible to start by searching
for recurring patterns in the research material, trying to find out whether there could be an
underlying norm behind the patterns. This point of view is also the basis of the research method of
this study: I have tried to uncover recurring patterns in the translations by comparing TT1 and TT2
to each other using both statistical and text analytical methods. The patterns emerging from the
translations will then be compared to and contrasted with normative pronouncements found in
extratextual sources.
4.1 Research material
The research material of the present study consist of two Finnish translations of Charles Darwin’s
On the Origin of the Species, which was originally published in 1859. A total of six editions were
published, in which Darwin answered criticism of previous versions and updated the content based
on new research (Ranta 2009: 420). The book is considered to be a major landmark of evolutionary
biology, explaining the diversity of all life on earth. Darwin’s ground-breaking idea of natural
selection, first presented in this book, has since been adapted to various other fields of science,
including economics, computer science, medicine and psychology. Translator Pertti Ranta (2009:
421) describes the work as “the book with the biggest influence on our world view”, which remains
relevant to this day. It was recently voted the most influential academic book in history by the
British newspaper The Guardian (Flood: 2012).
The translations used in this study are the 1st edition of the first Finnish translation from 1913–1917
by A.R. Koskimies, and the latest, most up-to-date version from 2009 by Pertti Ranta. The latest
edition of the first translation was published in 1988, but since this study aims to examine how the
genre and norms of Finnish scientific writing have changed over the last century, the first edition
was chosen for the analysis. The newest translation from 2009 was retranslated in celebration of the
24
200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, as well as the 150th anniversary of the publication of the first
edition.
Because of the limited scope of this Master’s thesis, the two translations could not be analysed in
their entirety. In order to narrow down the material, I initially planned to excerpt the same passage
from both translations. I selected chapter IV of the book for analysis, since it introduces the concept
of natural selection, which later became to be known as the centerpiece of Darwin’s thought and is
therefore of great importance.
However, it was quickly discovered that gathering the material would not be as straightforward as
expected. During the first phase of gathering material it became evident that the translations are not
based on the same source text: the older Finnish translation from 1913–1917 is based on the 6th and
final edition of the English source text, published in 1872, whereas the newer translation from 2009
is based on the very first edition, published in 1859. As it turns out, the two editions are quite
dissimilar: the first edition is roughly 170,000 words long, while the 6th edition is almost a third
longer with over 200,000 words. After further investigation it became clear that the two editions
differ quite substantially throughout the text, not only in certain sections. According to Wyhe
(2002), every section of the book has undergone some sort of editing throughout the various
editions.
Although a major setback, this was by no means an insurmountable problem. The obstacle was
overcome by finding out which parts of the 6th edition were unaffected by editing, i.e. remained
exactly the same as in the 1st edition. After acquiring the two editions of the source text in a digital
format, both texts were compared to each other electronically in order to locate sections that had
gone unaltered throughout the various editions. Wyhe (2002) also offers a variorum of Origin of the
Species, but the user interface and features proved inadequate for the purposes of this study.
As previously stated, the paragraphs that would be included in the research material were chosen by
scrolling through the compared editions in Microsoft Word. It was clear that Darwin had edited the
text quite heavily throughout the entire book, but luckily there was enough overlap between the two
editions to gather enough material for the purposes of this study. The final research material
consists of roughly 3,500 words of English source text and the equivalent sections of the Finnish
translations (2,592 and 2,213 words long), which were typed into plain text format. All three texts
were proofread to ensure they contained no typos. The research material can be found in Appendix
1 (for TT1) and Appendix 2 (for TT2).
25
The main focus of this study is to examine how Finnish translations of non-fiction have changed in
the last hundred years. This is done by examining the distribution of various different textual
features, as well as a close reading and text analysis. For the sake of the validity of the study it was
decided to only include sections of the text that could be viewed as coherent units. Including
unconnected, loose sentences was therefore out of the question.
It is common for translators to break down sentences in order to make the target text flow better in
the target language, but paragraphs are often treated as coherent wholes which should not be broken
down. Following this reasoning I decided to limit the source material to paragraphs which had
remained unchanged between the different editions. In an ideal situation the source material would
have been one continuous passage, but unfortunately it proved impossible in this case. Instead of
abandoning the research subject, it was deemed that the advantages of studying The Origin of the
Species outweigh the disadvantages that would result from dividing the text into smaller excerpts. It
is also worth noting that the excerpts only include full sentences from the body text, excluding
headings, subheadings, introductory keyword lists, and the like.
4.2 Quantitative method
The quantitative research method of the present study is a statistical analysis conducted on selected
sections of the two translations (from now on referred to as TT1 and TT2), both of which have been
annotated using a functional descriptive grammar annotation software Connexor FDG provided by
the Language Bank of Finland. The software tags the text with metadata about its syntactical and
morphological features, such as syntactical dependency, word class, inflection, and so forth. The
quantitative analysis attempts to uncover statistically significant differences in the distribution of
various textual features between the two translations. The hypothesis is that there are significant
differences between the two translations which can be explained by changes in the norms of
translating non-fiction. The results will be analysed using a spreadsheet software, which allows us
to examine and illustrate differences between the two translations, ranging all the way from
sentence-level to single morphemes. A more in-depth description of the features to be analysed is
included in Section 5 and its subsections.
In some cases, for example when comparing the accuracy of terminology between TT1 and TT2,
the source text (ST) excerpts have been consulted. Nevertheless, the main focus is not on the source
text or the two translations’ relation to it, but on differences between the two translations. The same
excerpts are used as material for both quantitative and qualitative analysis.
26
4.3 Qualitative method
As stated in the previous section, the first part of the analysis is based on statistical data gathered
from both source texts. However, it is important to remember that a statistical analysis, no matter
how meticulously conducted, only offers one rather mechanical point of view into the source
material. This is especially true in matters of language and translation. As Vehmas-Lehto (2011: 32)
has said, it is not worthwhile to base translation research solely on quantitative information.
Because of this, the quantitative method of the study will be accompanied by a qualitative method.
The main reason for including a qualitative method is that the method of statistical analysis does not
take into account the semantic content of the excerpts. The quantitative method is, in a way, blind to
meaning, only focusing on the distribution of morphological categories. This shortcoming will
hopefully be overcome in the qualitative section of the analysis. The research method is based on
close reading and text analysis, and has a twofold purpose. First, it allows us to examine changes in
the semantic content of the translations, such as possible omissions, additions or changes in
meaning. Second, the qualitative method allows us to take another point of view at the findings of
the quantitative method. If the quantitative method reveals that there are significant differences in
the distribution of certain textual elements between TT1 and TT2, the qualitative analysis will
reveal whether the same differences are noticeable in a qualitative reading as well.
The qualitative analysis is not based on a single pre-existing theory or categorization of norms.
Instead, it will take into account previous research and writings on norms of translation and nonfiction. I will attempt to compare my findings to previous research, and see whether my findings
can be attributed to norms found in other sources.
27
5
Analysis
The analysis section of the present study will be divided into two subsections: section 5.1 is
quantitative, followed by section 5.2 which is qualitative. The basic premise of this study is that
both translations reflect the translation norms of their time. The aim of the quantitative analysis is to
uncover textual regularities, which will be explained in more detail in the qualitative section.
Hopefully at least some of the differences can be reasonably explained by changes in the norms of
non-fiction translation.
The purpose of the quantitative section is to provide numerical data about the distribution of various
textual features of both translations. This section will include a thorough statistical analysis
concerning word classes and morphology of the source material, i.e. TT1 and TT2. This quantitative
analysis aims to reveal how the two translations differ from each other in terms of distribution of
textual features. The data is accompanied by textual examples from the texts when deemed
necessary. However, the primary function of the quantitative section is to start the process of norm
reconstruction by looking for patterns of translational behavior (see section 3.4.3).
There is one major shortcoming in the quantitative method: it is incapable of revealing semantic
differences between the texts. The purpose of the qualitative section is to address these
shortcomings by finding the parts where the semantic content of the two translations differ, such as
the parts where something has been changed or left out of TT1 or TT2. Including a qualitative
section was necessary to give a clear, thorough picture of the text in its entirety, hopefully
explaining some of the differences. Although the results of the quantitative section may appear to
go unexplained, they will be returned to later in section 5.2, which includes more textual examples
and explanatory analysis. The full context for each example can be found in the Appendices.
5.1 Quantitative analysis
The quantitative analysis is divided into subsections based on the different textual classes being
examined. Subsections 5.1.1 through 5.1.5 include the quantitative analysis of chosen word classes
and their textual features, such as verb tense and noun case. Subsections 5.1.6 and 5.1.7 concern
clitics and possessive suffixes, which are morphemes that are dependent on other words. Subsection
5.1.8 looks into word and sentence length. All data is based on the results obtained using an
annotation software provided by the Language Bank of Finland. The results have not been manually
checked for errors due to the vast amount of data.
28
Because the two translations were of different lengths, all results in the analysis have been
normalized and given as percentages to make them comparable. All chi-square tests use Yates’
correction. When the differences in the results of the statistical analysis were non-existent or
minuscule, no chi-square test was conducted.
Table 1 and Figure 1 below illustrate the total distribution of all word classes in TT1 and TT2.
Table 1: Distribution of word classes in TT1 and TT2
Word class
Adjective
Adverbial
Auxiliary V
Conjunction
Noun
Numeral
Adposition
Pronoun
Verb
Total
TT1
TT1 %
309
12.3%
274
10.9%
60
2.4%
221
8.8%
700
27.8%
37
1.5%
47
1.9%
301
11.9%
572
22.7%
2521 100.0%
TT2
TT2 %
282 12.9%
255 11.7%
46
2.1%
200
9.2%
661 30.3%
31
1.4%
39
1.8%
222 10.2%
446 20.4%
2182 100.0%
Figure 1: Distribution of word classes in TT1 and TT2
It is clear that both translations follow the same pattern when it comes to their word class
distribution. There does not seem to be any major difference between the two texts. This was to be
expected, as we are still examining the text on a relatively superficial level: major differences at this
stage would have been unexpected, to say the least. However, the two translations do differ from
29
each other, albeit only slightly. TT2 seems to be slightly favouring nouns and adverbials, while TT1
favours pronouns and verbs. It is worth reminding that both translations are based on the exact same
source text, which means that these differences, however small they may be, are results of
translational choices.
5.1.1
Verbs
This category includes everything related to both main verbs and auxiliary verbs. Table 2 below
illustrates the distribution of main and auxiliary verbs in TT1 and TT2.
Table 2: Distribution of verb types Aux and Main in TT1 and TT2
Verb type
Aux
Main
Total
TT1
TT1 %
60
9.5%
572
90.5%
632 100.0%
TT2
TT2 %
46
9.3%
446
90.7%
492 100.0%
As Table 2 above illustrates quite clearly, there does not seem to be any significant difference in the
use of main verbs or auxiliary verbs in the two translations. Main verbs are the most prevalent class
in both TT1 and TT2, with roughly a tenth of all verbs being auxiliary verbs. The translations have
to be analysed more closely to gain meaningful results. We will now turn our attention to
differences in grammatical features of verbs: grammatical voice, grammatical mood,
grammatical tense, infinitive forms, and person.
Grammatical voice gives information about the person acting or being acted upon. It can have two
values: active or passive. Active voice shows the agent, whereas passive voice does not. The
distribution of active and passive voice in TT1 and TT2 is illustrated in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Distribution of grammatical voice
Voice
Act
Pass
Total
TT1
TT1 %
551
87.2%
81
12.8%
632 100.0%
TT2
TT2 %
429
87.2%
63
12.8%
492 100.0%
Once again it seems that the difference is strikingly nonexistent. Both translations are practically
uniform in their use of grammatical voice.
Iso Suomen Kielioppi (VISK: §115) describes grammatical mood as a grammatical feature of
verbs (excluding infinitives and participles) that expresses attitude. Grammatical mood can have
30
four categories in Finnish: indicative, imperative, potential and conditional. Their distribution is
illustrated in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Distribution of grammatical mood in TT1 and TT2
Mood
IND
IMP
POT
CND
Total
TT1
TT1 %
245
83.6%
13
4.4%
3
1.0%
32
10.9%
293 100.0%
TT2
TT2 %
214 87.0 %
4
1.6%
0
0.0%
28
11.4%
246 100.0%
Grammatical mood, too, seems to be following the same trend in both translations. The biggest
differences are between indicative and imperative: It seems that TT1 slightly favours imperative,
while TT2 avoids it. On the other hand, TT2 favours indicative more than TT1. Potential verb form
does not occur at all in TT2. Differences in the resultsi are nonsignificant (χ² (3, N = 741) = 7.60, p
= 0.108 > 0.05).
According to Iso Suomen Kielioppi (VISK: §112), grammatical tense is a deictic category that
expresses the temporal relation between the moment of speaking and the thing being spoken of.
Finnish language has four grammatical tenses: present, imperfect, perfect and past perfect, which is
also known as pluperfect. Their distribution is illustrated in Table 5 and Figure 2 below.
Table 5: Distribution of grammatical tenses in TT1 and TT2
Tense
PRES
PAST
PCP PRE
PCP PAST
Total
TT1
TT1 %
213
50.8%
52
12.4%
68
16.2%
86
20.5%
419 100.0 %
TT2
TT2 %
187
58.1%
47
14.6%
36
11.2%
52
16.1%
322 100.0 %
31
Figure 2: Distribution of grammatical tense in TT1 and TT2
It is clear that there are some differences between TT1 and TT2 in their use of verb tenses: TT1
favours present participle and past participle, which are by default heavier structures than present
and past tense, which in turn are favoured by TT2. Performing a chi-square test on grammatical
tenses, however, results in χ² (3, N = 741) = 7.60, p = 0.055 > 0.05. The result is therefore not quite
significant.
We will next look at the usage of infinitive forms. According to VISK (§119), Finnish has three
infinitive verb forms: -A, -E, and -mA. Infinitives are verb forms that inflect partly like nominals.
The annotation software, however, recognizes four different infinitives. The so-called fourth
infinitive (not considered infinitive by VISK) is extremely rare in Finnish: it is mainly used in
certain old expressions or idioms, such as käy käymistään and ui uimistaan (FinnLectura). Some
examples of fourth infinitive were initially found from the source material, but after closer
inspection it became clear this was due to an error in the annotation process. The annotation
software is unable to differentiate between fourth infinitive forms and action nouns formed using
inflection -minen, such as meneminen and rakentaminen. It turned out the hits for fourth inflection
were, in fact, mistakenly tagged action nouns. After noticing this error, the mistakenly tagged fourth
infinitive forms were excluded from the analysis.
After excluding the mistakenly tagged fourth infinitive form from the analysis, INF1, INF2 and
INF3 were analysed. Their distribution is illustrated in table 6 below.
32
Table 6: Distribution of infinitive forms in TT1 and TT2
Infinitives
INF 1
INF 2
INF 3
Total
TT1
53
36
28
117
TT1 %
45.3 %
30.8 %
23.9 %
100.0 %
TT2
46
13
30
89
TT2 %
51.7 %
14.6 %
33.7 %
100.0 %
Performing a chi-square test resulted in χ² (2, N = 206) = 7.69, p = 0.021 < 0.05 which is a
significant result. This result will be returned to in section 5.2.1.
The results are clear: there are certain major differences in the distribution of infinitive forms. First
infinitive forms, such as sanoa and tullakseen, are the most prevalent infinitive form in both TT1
and TT2. Second infinitive forms, such as sattuessa, kuluessa and pitäen are used over twice as
often in TT1 compared to TT2. TT2, on the other hand, favours third infinitive structures, such as
kokemaan and jyrsimättä.
Verbs inflect for person by adding personal suffixes to the end of a conjugated verb to signal
relations between referential noun phrases (VISK: §107). Due to personal inflections, personal
pronouns are not necessary in first and second person (FinnTreeBank2 Manual: 16). Table 7 and
Figure 3 below illustrate the distribution of person in TT1 and TT2.
Table 7: Distribution of person of verbs in TT1 and TT2
Person
SG1
SG2
SG3
PL1
PL2
PL3
Total
TT1
TT1 %
27
9.5%
4
1.4%
136
47.7%
25
8.8%
3
1.1%
90
31.6%
285 100.0%
TT2
TT2 %
27
11.6%
4
1.7%
132
56.7%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
70
30.0%
233 100.0%
33
Figure 3: Distribution of person of verbs in TT1 and TT2
Third person singular and third person plural are by far the most common persons. Performing a
chi-square test gives χ² (5, N = 518) = 25.60, p = 0.0001 < 0.05. The result is significant: there are
statistically significant differences in the use of person of verbs between TT1 and TT2. Perhaps the
most interesting finding in terms of person is the difference between third person singular (SG3)
and first person plural (PL1): TT2 favoured SG3 forms such as kannattaa, tapahtuu, and tuottaa,
while avoiding PL1 completely. TT1, on the other hand, used PL1 forms such as näemme,
muistelkaamme or mietimme, which bring the text closer to the reader, giving the older translation a
warmer tone when compared to TT2. This result will be analysed in more detail in section 5.2.4.
5.1.2
Nouns
Nouns are the largest category of nominals in TT1 and TT2, making up approximately 30 percent
of the total vocabulary of both translations. Frequency of nouns was higher in TT2, which may be a
sign of decreased readability as shown by previous research (see Vehmas-Lehto 2011: 42). Nouns
were analysed in terms of their number, grammatical case and the division of nouns and proper
nouns. Table 8 below illustrates the distribution of plural and singular number in nouns.
Table 8: Distribution of plural and singular nouns in TT1 and TT2
Number
SG
PL
Total
TT1
420
270
690
TT1 %
60.9%
39.1%
100.0%
TT2
388
259
647
TT2 %
60.0%
40.0%
100.0%
34
In terms of singular and plural nouns, there is no significant difference between the two translations.
In fact, the amount of singular and plural forms in nouns is within 0.9 percentile of the usage in
nominals in general.
Noun cases express the relationship between nouns and other grammatical components of the
sentence. There are fifteen cases in Finnish. The distribution of noun cases in TT1 and TT2 is
illustrated in Table 9 and Figure 4 below.
Table 9: Distribution of grammatical cases in nouns
Noun cases
Nom
Ptv
Gen
Acc
Ine
Ela
Ill
Ade
Abl
All
Ess
Tra
Abe
Com
Ins
Total
TT1
132
132
205
0
44
44
44
25
18
10
18
9
5
0
4
690
TT1 %
19.1%
19.1%
29.7%
0.0%
6.4%
6.4%
6.4%
3.6%
2.6%
1.4%
2.6%
1.3%
0.7%
0.0%
0.6%
100.0%
TT2
130
127
200
0
47
31
36
30
13
7
12
14
0
0
0
647
35
TT2 %
20.1%
19.6%
30.9%
0.0%
7.3%
4.8%
5.6%
4.6%
2.0%
1.1%
1.9%
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Figure 4: Distribution of grammatical case in nouns
Nominative, partitive, and genitive were the most used cases in both translations. Accusative and
comitative cases were not used in either translation. TT1 also used abessive and instructive cases,
which were unused in TT2. It is worth noticing that there were two cases that were used in TT1 but
not in TT2, while there was no case that was only used in TT2. In other words, TT1 shows a larger
variance in the use of grammatical cases: although abessive and instructive were not used much,
they were nevertheless used. The more homogenous case use of TT2 might be an example of the
entrenchment of linguistic conventions within the genre of Finnish scientific writing.
Both TT1 and TT2 contained the exact same amount of proper nouns, 38. This was by no means
an interesting result: one could assume that proper nouns would hold great meaning in a scientific
text, including information such as citing other scientists, names of geographical locations, and so
forth. Because the number of proper nouns was quite small, it was decided to take a closer look at
the instances.
As expected, most of the proper nouns used in TT1 and TT2 were geographical locations such as
Afrikka, Tulimaa, Australia and Persia. There were also names of other researchers, such as Hubert,
Smith and Watson.
36
5.1.3
Adjectives
Adjectives can be analysed in terms of their grammatical case, grammatical number, and
comparative and superlative forms. The distribution of grammatical number in adjectives is
illustrated in Table 10 below.
Table 10: Distribution of adjective number in TT1 and TT2
Adj number
SG
PL
Total
TT1
159
131
290
TT1 %
54.8%
45.2%
100.0%
TT2 TT2 %
144 53.5%
125 46.5%
269 100.0%
As was the case with all nominals and nouns, the difference in grammatical number of adjectives
seems almost nonexistent. Both translations have approximately equal percentages of singular and
plural adjectives. The distribution of grammatical cases in adjectives is illustrated in Table 11 and
Figure 5 below. Accusative, comitative and instructive cases were unused and therefore excluded
from the table.
Table 11: Distribution of grammatical cases in adjectives, excluding accusative, comitative and instructive
Adj cases
Nom
Ptv
Gen
Ine
Ela
Ill
Ade
Abl
All
Ess
Tra
Abe
Total
TT1 TT1 % TT2 TT2%
74 25.5%
66 24.5%
69 23.8%
84 31.2%
70 24.1%
62 23.0%
13
4.5%
12
4.5%
14
4.8%
11
4.1%
8
2.8%
9
3.3%
9
3.1%
7
2.6%
5
1.7%
2
0.7%
5
1.7%
0
0.0%
13
4.5%
5
1.9%
9
3.1%
11
4.1%
1
0.3%
0
0.0%
290 100.0% 269 100.0%
37
Figure 5: Distribution of grammatical cases in adjectives, excluding accusative, comitative and instructive
The first thing that one notices is the high proportion of partitive forms used in TT2.
Partitive form is used to express indefiniteness of various kinds (VISK: §1234). Examples of
partitive adjective forms found in the research material include pieniä, viimeaikaisia and
polymorfisia. Performing a chi-square test on adjective cases gives χ² (11, N = 559) = 13.39, p =
0.27 > 0.05, which means the result is nonsignificant. Accusative, comitative and instructive cases
were not included in the test, as they were not found in either text.
In addition to the high number of partitives in TT2, there were other minor differences between the
two translations. TT1 was once again more varied in its choice of case: adessive, allative and
abessive were used in TT1 but not in TT2. TT1 favours essive, while TT2 uses slightly more illative
and translative.
Adjective comparison is illustrated in Table 12 below.
Table 12: Adjective comparison in TT1 and TT2
Comparison
CMP
SUP
Total
TT1
22
10
32
TT1 %
68.8%
31.3%
100.0%
TT2 TT2 %
18 69.2%
8 30.8%
26 100.0%
It is quite clear there is no significant difference between the use of comparative and superlative
adjective forms in TT1 and TT2.
38
5.1.4
Pronouns
Pronouns can be divided into several subcategories based on their function. However, as some of
the subcategories are quite rare, this analysis is limited to the most prevalent categories: personal
pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, and relative pronouns. Declension of all pronouns will be
analysed first.
Table 13 below illustrates the distribution of the grammatical number of pronouns.
Table 13: Distribution of grammatical number of pronouns in TT1 and TT2
Number
SG
PL
Total
TT1
TT1 %
167
58.2%
120
41.8%
287 100.0%
TT2
TT2 %
120
56.3%
93
43.7%
213 100.0%
Once again, the difference in grammatical number seems to be almost nonexistent. It seems that
grammatical number might be a feature that tends to go unchanged in translation.
Table 14 and Figure 6 below illustrate the distribution of grammatical case of pronouns.
Table 14: Distribution of pronoun case in TT1 and TT2, exluding accusative, abessive and comitative
Pron case
Nom
Ptv
Gen
Ine
Ela
Ill
Ade
Abl
All
Ess
Tra
Ins
Total
TT1
96
49
70
14
16
9
21
2
13
4
4
2
300
TT1 %
32.0%
16.3%
23.3%
4.7%
5.3%
3.0%
7.0%
0.7%
4.3%
1.3%
1.3%
0.7%
100.0%
TT2
76
45
43
16
15
7
5
2
5
0
4
1
219
TT2 %
34.7%
20.5%
19.6%
7.3%
6.8%
3.2%
2.3%
0.9%
2.3%
0.0%
1.8%
0.5%
100.0%
39
Figure 6: Distribution of pronoun case in TT1 and TT2, exluding accusative, abessive and comitative
As Figure 6 above shows, there are differences between the pronoun cases of TT1 and TT2.
Nominative is the most common case in both translations, but the two other major categories
partitive and genitive differ greatly. TT1 seems to favour genitive, while TT2 favours partitive, as
well as inessive and elative.
When it comes to overall variance in the use of pronoun cases, TT1 and TT2 are on the same line.
Performing a chi-square test gives χ² (11, N = 519) = 14.81, p = 0.19 > 0.05. The result is
nonsignificant. There is no significant difference in the average declension of pronouns between
TT1 and TT2.
The first category of pronouns to be analysed in more detail is personal pronouns. The distribution
of personal pronouns in TT1 and TT2 is illustrated in Table 15 below.
Table 15: Distribution of personal pronouns in TT1 and TT2, excluding SG2 (sinä) and PL2 (te)
Personal
SG 1 (minä)
SG 3 (hän)
PL 1 (me)
PL 3 (he)
Total
TT1
4
6
8
6
24
TT1 %
16.7%
25.0%
33.3%
25.0%
100.0%
TT2
3
4
1
2
10
TT2 %
30.0%
40.0%
10.0%
20.0%
100.0%
Although the sample size is small, there is something to take note of here. TT1 has over twice as
many personal pronouns than TT2, which means that TT2 has either completely omitted the
40
pronouns (and person) from the text or chosen to convey persona by other means, such as verb
inflection. PL1 and PL3 have gone through the largest decline. Performing a chi-square test gives χ²
(3, N = 32) = 2.67, p = 0.44 > 0.05. The result is therefore nonsignificant. This result will be
returned to in section 5.2.4.
The second category to be analysed is demonstrative pronouns. The distribution of demonstrative
pronouns is illustrated in Table 16 below.
Table 16: Distribution of demonstrative pronouns in TT1 and TT2.
Demonstrative
tämä
tuo
se
nämä
nuo
ne
Total
TT1
28
1
47
13
1
24
114
TT1%
24.6%
0.9%
41.2%
11.4%
0.9%
21.1%
100.0%
TT2
TT2%
14.8%
1.1%
40.9%
9.1%
0.0%
34.1%
100.0%
13
1
36
8
0
30
88
TT1 clearly favours pronoun tämä, which can Performing a chi-square test gives χ² (5, N = 202) =
6.57, p = 0.26 > 0.05. The result is nonsignificant.
The third category is relative pronouns, which are used to indicate the beginning of a relative
clause. Finnish has two relative pronouns: joka and mikä. Genrally speaking joka refers to the
preceding noun, whereas mikä refers to the entire preceding clause or a complete idea (VISK:
§735). The distribution of relative pronouns is illustrated in Table 17 below.
Table 17: Distribution of relative pronouns in TT1 and TT2.
Relative
joka
mikä
Total
TT1
45
11
56
TT1%
80.4%
19.6%
100.0%
TT2
26
14
40
TT2%
65.0%
35.0%
100.0%
The first thing to notice is that the overall number of relative pronouns is higher in TT1 than in TT2.
It also seems that TT1 favours joka quite heavily. From this result we can infer that TT1 has more
relative clauses than TT2. This result will be discussed in more detail in the qualitative section of
the present study. Performing a chi-square test gives χ² (1, N = 96) = 2.12, p = 0.14 > 0.05. The
result is nonsignificant.
41
5.1.5
Conjunctions
Conjunctions are divided into two categories: coordinating conjunctions (CC) and subordinating
conjunctions (CS). The distribution of the two categories is illustrated in Table 18 below.
Table 18: Distribution of CC and CS in TT1 and TT2
Type
CC
CS
Total
TT1
TT1 %
125
56.6%
96
43.4%
221 100.0%
TT2
TT2 %
123
61.5%
77
38.5%
200 100.0%
There are slight differences in the use of conjunctions between the two translations. Performing a
chi-square test gives χ² (1, N = 421) = 0.86, p = 0.35 > 0.05. The result is nonsignificant. It seems
that TT2 uses more coordinating conjunctions, such as ja and mutta, and less subordinating
conjunctions, such as että and kun. It can be argued that this might be a sign of easier readability:
coordination can be seen as a textual strategy which connects two or more syntactically same level
entities by drawing attention to their similarity (VISK: §1080), whereas subordination connects two
or more dependent clauses to each other (VISK: §883). In other words, coordinating conjunctions
connect independent clauses that can be understood on their own, whereas subordinating clauses
require the main clause to be comprehensible. It can be argued that favouring coordinating sentence
structures makes for more readable text, whereas favouring subordinate sentences makes the text
syntactically more complex.
Subordinating conjunctions signal the beginning of a subordinating clause, which are dependent of
main clauses (VISK: §883). The function of a subordinating clause is to give additional information
about the content of the main clause.
There are 24 different conjunctions used in TT1 and TT2, but since some of them are only used a
few times, the analysis is limited to the most used ones. These can further be categorized into two
subcategories: coordinating conjunctions että, kuin and vaikka, and subordinating conjunctions ja,
jos, kun, mutta and tai. The distribution of the first category, coordinating conjunctions, is
illustrated in Table 19 below.
42
Table 19: Distribution of most common coordinating conjunctions in TT1 and TT2.
Coord
että
kuin
vaikka
Total
TT1
34
19
5
58
TT1 %
58.6%
32.8%
8.6%
100.0%
TT2
21
17
5
43
TT2 %
48.8%
39.5%
11.6%
100.0%
It is clear that TT1 and TT2 are close to each other in respect to their use of coordinating
conjunctions. The most notable differences are the high number of että in TT1. Että is a conjunction
that has no meaning on its own; it is often used to separate two clauses from each other (VISK:
§819). Performing a chi-square test on coordinating conjunctions gives χ² (2, N = 101) = 0.98, p =
0.61 > 0.05. The result is nonsignificant.
Table 20 below illustrates the distribution of the second category, subordinating conjunctions.
Table 20: Distribution of most common subordinating conjunctions in TT1 and TT2.
Subord
ja
jos
kun
mutta
tai
Total
TT1
76
13
12
9
23
133
TT1 %
57.1%
9.8%
9.0%
6.8%
17.3%
100.0%
TT2
70
10
14
14
27
135
TT2 %
51.9%
7.4%
10.4%
10.4%
20.0%
100.0%
Once again, the differences are minor. The most notable differences are the higher number of mutta
and tai in TT2. Mutta is contrasting by nature (VISK: §1103), whereas tai is disjunctive (VISK
§1098). Performing a chi-square test on subordinating conjunctions gives χ² (4, N = 268) = 2.18, p
= 0.82 > 0.05. The result is nonsignificant.
All in all, there is no significant difference between the distribution of conjunctions in TT1 and
TT2.
5.1.6
Clitics
This section concerns clitics, i.e. particles that attach to a host word and have distinct functions
(VISK §126). There are a total of 7 clitics in Finnish: -kO, -kA, -kin, -kAAn, -pA, -hAn, and -s. The
distribution of clitics is illustrated in Table 21 below.
43
Table 21: Distribution of clitics in TT1 and TT2
CLI
-kO
-kA
-kin
-kAAn
-pA
-hAn
Total
TT1
5
5
25
12
5
1
53
TT1 %
9.4%
9.4%
47.2%
22.6%
9.4%
1.9%
100.0%
TT2
6
3
11
2
0
2
24
TT2 %
25.0%
12.5%
45.8%
8.3%
0.0%
8.3%
100.0%
As Table 21 above shows, there is some variation between TT1 and TT2 in their use of clitics. TT1
favours -kAAn and -pA, while TT2 uses the -hAn and question clitic -kO more. Typical examples
of uses are exemplified below.
Example 1
Jalostusta ei yleensä suinkaan saada aikaan eri rotujen ristisiitoksella. (TT1/2)
Viittaavatko nämä mutkikkaat ja merkilliset säännöt siihen, että lajeilla olisi hedelmättömyys
myötäsyntyisenä ominaisuutena yksinkertaisesti lajien sekaantumisen estämiseksi luonnossa? (TT2/16)
The number of –pA clitics is connected to TT1’s tendency to favour imperative verb mood when
addressing the reader, as shown below.
Example 2
Verratkaapa englantilaista kirjekyyhkystä lyhytotsaiseen kuperkeikkakyyhkyseen (TT1/1)
Katsokaapa kuinka erilaisia ovat kaali-kasvin lehdet ja kuinka tavattoman yhtäläisiä kukat! (TT1/2)
Performing a chi-square test on all clitics gives χ² (5, N = 77) = 8.84, p = 0.11 > 0.05. There is no
significant difference in the overall use of clitics between TT1 and TT2.
5.1.7
Possessive suffixes
Second person singular and plural possessive suffixes, such as lintusi and lintunne respectively,
were unused in the source material. Third person singular and plural share the same form. Because
of these reasons, the analysis of possessive suffixes is limited to the first and third person of
possessive suffixes, such as yllätykseni and kotieläintensä. Table 22 below illustrates the
distribution of possessive suffixes in TT1 and TT2.
44
Table 22: Distribution of possessive suffixes in TT1 and TT2.
Poss suff
Poss p1
Poss p3
Total
TT1
19
54
73
TT1 %
26.0%
74.0%
100%
TT2
2
47
49
TT2 %
4.1%
95.9%
100%
Performing a chi-square test on the possessive suffixes gives χ² (1, N = 122) = 8.42, p = 0.0037 <
0.05, which is significant. In other words, TT1 and TT2 differ significantly in their use of
possessive suffixes. Closer inspection reveals that TT1 has a tendency to utilize possessive first
person suffixes with infinitive verbs forms such as verratessamme and tarkastaessani, which are
more common in TT1 than in TT2. The vast majority of TT2’s possessive suffix use is in third
person, such as siipiinsä, and toisistaan. The prevalence of first person possessive suffixes in TT1
might be explained by the fact that infinitive verbs are common in non-finite clauses, which seem to
be more prevalent in TT1 than TT2. This matter will be returned to in section 5.2.1.
5.1.8
Word and sentence length
This section compares the word and sentence lengths of TT1 and TT2. Figure 8 below illustrates the
distribution of word lengths in TT1 and TT2.
Figure 8: Distribution of word lengths in TT1 and TT2
45
There does not seem to be any remarkable difference between the word lengths of the two
translations: the difference is nonsignificant. Performing a chi-square test on word length gives χ²
(23, N = 268) = 15.36, p = 0.88 > 0.05. The result is nonsignificant.
Sentence length is a whole different matter, as illustrated by Figure 9 below.
Figure 9: Sentence length in TT1 and TT2
TT2-line is more oriented towards the left side of the figure, i.e. shorter sentences. TT1-line, on the
other hand, has fewer short sentences, but the graph continues further towards the right side of the
figure, i.e. towards longer sentences. The average sentence length of TT1 is 24.5 words, whereas
the average of TT2 is 17.56 words. The average sentences length of TT1 is 37% higher than TT2. In
addition to average sentence length, the sample maximums differed greatly between the two
translations. The longest sentence in TT2 was 39 words long, while the longest sentence in TT1 was
65 words long. Moreover, 13 sentences in TT1 were longer than the longest sentence in TT2.
It would have been interesting to perform a similar test on clause length, but as clause analysis is
extremely time-consuming and difficult, it was not included in this study. Although the annotation
software can be used to examine certain syntactic elements, it does not lend itself well to
conducting a thorough clause analysis.
The difference in sentence length is the most striking result so far. Possible explanations for the
difference will be offered in Section 5.2.1 below, which includes the qualitative analysis of the
syntactic changes.
46
5.2 Qualitative analysis
This section includes the qualitative analysis of the study. This part of the analysis was conducted
by close reading excerpts from TT1 and TT2 side by side. The findings have been categorized into
4 categories: changes in syntax, changes in terminology, omissions, and addressing the reader.
However, before venturing deeper into the qualitative analysis of the excerpts, we have to look at
the norms that come before the act of translating can begin, i.e. the preliminary norms concerning
the two translations. There are two important preliminary norms that have to be addressed in this
analysis, the first being the norm of who is allowed to translate, the second being what is deemed
worth translating.
As stated in Section 3.4.2, the field of non-fiction translation has changed quite a bit during the last
hundred years, at least partly due to scientific progress. Increased knowledge requires more
specialization, which has resulted in translation ‘generalists’ no longer being able to translate texts
from all fields of science.
The first Finnish translation of Origin of Species, A.R. Koskimies, was a translator and a linguist. In
addition to Darwin, he translated fiction, including Jane Austen and George Sava. Pertti Ranta, the
man behind the newest translation, on the other hand, is an expert in the field of biology. He has
also translated Darwin’s The Voyage of the Beagle. This is a clear example of the norm of
specialists as translators, which I postulated in section 3.4.2.
The second preliminary norm is related to the choice of works to be translated. Especially
intriguing is the fact that the first translation is based on the sixth and final edition of On the Origin
of the Species, while the latest translation is based on the first edition. This is counterintuitive:
surely the latest translation should be based on the ‘most advanced’ and ‘most up-to-date’ version
of the source text?
The choice between different editions is influenced by many factors. The reasoning is closely
related to the reason for retranslation in the first place. According to Leikola (2013: 442), Origin of
Species was already somewhat outdated when it was finally published in Finnish in 1913–1917. It
had been almost 60 years since Darwin’s ground-breaking work was initially published. The
translation work of the first translation was funded by The Finnish Senate (ibid.), and was
undertaken mainly for cultural reasons. According to Leikola, Finnish readership was not large
47
enough for the publication to be profitable, but since the work was already considered a classic in
its field, it was nevertheless published.
Ranta (2009: 419–421) has explained the need for retranslation in the epilogue of his translation. He
states that although new editions of Koskimies’ translation have been published as lately as 2009,
they have been unchanged editions. Although Ranta considers the first translation praiseworthy, he
feels that a modern reader does not recognize the hundred-year-old text as their own. The main goal
of the new translation is to make Darwin’s work available to modern readers. However, this does
not explain why he has chosen to base his translation on the first edition of Origin of Species. He
explains the reasoning behind the choice of edition in the epilogue as follows (my translation):
“According to researchers, one gets the best impression of Darwin’s revolutionary thoughts by
reading the first edition of On the Origin of the Species, which is why this translation is based on that
edition.”
This quote highlights the reason for retranslating the work in the first place. Origin of Species is a
classic in its field because of the massive influence it has had on almost all fields of science. Even
though at this point there are better books about evolution and natural selection, Darwin’s work –
and especially its first edition – remains the book about natural selection. Interestingly enough,
Bahtin’s ideas about the intrinsic value of the original (see section 2.2.1) seem to apply to different
editions, too.
5.2.1
Changes in syntax
By far the most striking feature that has undergone changes was the sentence structure. As the
quantitative analysis showed (see section 5.1.8), the average sentence length of TT1 was 37%
longer than in TT2. This result was clearly evident in the qualitative analysis as well: there were 15
cases in which TT2 had opted for a simpler sentence structure than TT1, i.e. dividing the text into
shorter sentences. Example 3 below illustrates a typical case.
Example 3
Paljon tutkielmia on julkaistu eri kielillä kyyhkysistä ja monet niistä, ollen sangen vanhoja, ovat hyvin
huomattavia. (TT1/1)
Eri puolilla maailmaa ja eri kielillä on julkaistu monia kyyhkyjä käsitteleviä tutkielmia. Jotkut niistä ovat
huomattavan vanhoja. (TT2/1)
The opposite also occurred twice in the material: on two occasions TT2 sentences were more
complex than TT1, as shown in Example 4.
48
Example 4
Tässä meitä kohtaa Malthuksen oppi, sovellettuna monin verroin ankarampana koko kasvi- ja
eläinkuntaan. Sillä tässä tapauksessa ei voi tulla kysymykseen mikään ravinnon keinotekoinen
kartuttaminen eikä harkittu pidättäytyminen aviosta. (TT1/9)
Olemassaolon taistelu on Malthusin oppi sovellettuna moninkertaisella voimalla koko eläin- ja
kasvikuntaan; siinä ei voida ajatella keinotekoista lisäruokintaa eikä järkevää pidättäytymistä avioliitosta.
(TT2/9)
Additionally, TT1 chose to divide sentences more often using a semicolon, 11 times in total,
whereas TT2 only had one semicolon. Modern writing norms (Korpela 1996: 4.4) tend to advise
against using a semicolon, as it is easy to use incorrectly and can often be avoided. Most of the
semicolons used in TT1 seem to serve as alternatives for colons, commas or other punctuation. It
seems that semicolons are used as a stylistic tool to control the flow of the text. Example 5 below
shows a typical case.
Example 5
Kerran löysin hämmästyksekseni riippumattoman F. flava muurahaisten yhteiskunnan orjia pitävien F.
sanguinea muurahaisten keon alla olevan kiven alta; ja kun sattumalta tulin pöyhineeksi kumpaakin
pesää, kävivät pikkumuurahaiset hämmästyttävällä rohkeudella suurten naapuriensa kimppuun. (TT1/13)
In addition to semicolons, TT1 also used more dashes than TT2. There were five cases of dash use
in TT1, and only one in TT2. Using a dash has a strongly emphasising function in written Finnish.
Because of this, modern language norms tend to advise not to overuse them (Korpela 1996: 4.10).
Nested sentences, i.e. subordinating clauses that interrupt the main clause, were common in TT1.
They are known to reduce the readability of texts (Virtaniemi 1992), since they separate closely
connected parts of the text from each other. Nested sentences force the reader to re-read sentences.
According to Virtaniemi, nested sentences are especially disrupting if a) they are long, or b) there
are many of them in succession. Example 6 below shows an example of a nested sentence found in
TT1. Instead of opting for a long, complex sentence, TT2 has opted to divide the text into two
sentences.
Example 6
Kasveissa tämä jalostuminen, jonka aiheuttaa parhaiden yksilöiden satunnainen säilyminen –
olkootpa nuo yksilöt niin eroavia, että niitä heti niiden esiintyessä voidaan pitää erityisinä
muunnoksina tai älkööt ja olkoonpa kahta tai useampia eri lajeja tai rotuja sekoitettu toisiinsa tai
älköön – kasveissa tämä jalostuminen on selvästi havaittavissa lisääntyneestä koosta ja kauneudesta,
joka pistää silmäämme orvokin, ruusun, pelargoniumin, georginin y.m. kasvien muunnoksissa,
verratessamme niitä vanhempiin muunnoksiin ja kantalajeihin. (TT1/5)
Kasveissa sama vähittäinen jalostumisprosessi tapahtuu säilyttämällä satunnaisesti parhaat yksilöt
riippumatta siitä, onko niitä mahdollista luokitella erillisiksi muunnoksiksi vai ei, tai siitä, ovatko ne
49
syntyneet risteytymisen tuloksena vai ei. Prosessi lisää kokoa ja kauneutta, kuten nyt voidaan nähdä
orvokeissa, ruusuissa, pelargonioissa, daalioissa ja muissa kasveissa, kun niitä verrataan aikaisempiin
muunnoksiin tai kantamuotoihin. (TT2/5)
In addition to nested sentences, other forms of syntactic complexity was found in TT1. As noted in
sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.7, there were significant differences in the use of infinitive verb forms and
possessive suffixes between TT1 and TT2: second infinitive and first person possessive suffix were
almost completely unused in TT2. There can be many reasons for this, but one possible explanation
is that both of these textual features are often found in non-finite clauses, which can be used as
alternatives for subordinating clauses. Examples 7 and 8 below show examples of situations where
this has happened.
Example 7
Sillä uuden hyönteislajin tullessa saarelle täytyi luonnollisen valinnan pyrkimyksenä olla joko suurentaa
tai pienentää sen siipiä, --- (TT1/11)
Kun uusi hyönteinen saapui saarelle, luonnonvalinnan pyrkimys suurentaa tai pienentää sen siipiä --(TT2/11)
Example 8
Kerran, kun tämä oli hyvin selvään huomattavissa, panin kennon takaisin pesään ja annoin mehiläisten
jatkaa työtänsä kotvan aikaa; tarkastaessani sitten uudelleen solua havaitsin, että vinoneliö-levy oli
laadittu valmiiksi ja oli nyt aivan tasainen. (TT1/14)
Yhdessä tapauksessa, kun näin oli ilmiselvästi käynyt, laitoin kennon takaisin pesään ja annoin
mehiläisten jatkaa työtään vähän aikaa, ennen kuin jälleen tutkin kennon. (TT2/14)
In the two examples above, TT1 has opted for a non-finite clause, while TT2 chose a subordinating
clause. Korpela (2004: 10.4) notes that non-finite clauses are often shorter than subordinating
clauses, but subordinating clauses are more unambiguous and therefore preferable. He notes that
using non-finite clauses used to be considered clever, compact use of language. However, most
modern language guides tend to advise to avoid non-finite clauses, as subordinate clauses are
usually more comprehensible. According to Löytty (2002: 174), subordinating clauses tend to retain
correct pronoun referents better than non-finite clauses, which may be a reason why they are
nowadays avoided in non-fiction.
As stated in section 5.1.8, the sentences of TT1 were significantly longer than in TT2. Combined
with all of the findings above, it can safely be said that the sentence structure of TT1 is indeed, as
hypothesized, more complex than that of TT2. Changes in syntactical complexity can be at least
partially attributed to increased demand – or understanding – of readability. These changes can
therefore be linked to the norm of readability and clarity of information, introduced in section
50
4.4.2. With that being said, this does not necessarily mean that the norm itself has changed. Perhaps
readability was deemed just as important when the first translation was published. It may be more
accurate to say that our knowledge about what is readable has increased, resulting in improved
readability.
5.2.2
Changes in terminology
As fields of science have developed, terminology has established. As translator Ranta (2009: 420–
421) notes in his epilogue of TT2, some of the terms used in TT1 have been replaced by other
words, resulting in modern readers being unable to recognize their meaning. Some of the
differences in terminology are introduced in examples 9 to 17 below.
Example 9
Jalostusta ei yleensä suinkaan saada aikaan eri rotujen ristisiitoksella. (TT1/2)
Jalostusta ei yleensä saada aikaan risteyttämällä, vaan…(TT2/2)
Bank of Finnish Terminology in Arts and Sciences recognizes the term ristisiitos, but defines it as
the result of cross-pollination. Since the excerpt in question concerns pidgeons, it can be said that
the term is incorrect in modern language use. In a context such as this, risteytys is nowadays
accepted as the correct term.
Example 10
Siten tällaiset valioeläimet tulevat jättämään enemmän jälkeläisiä kuin huonommat, joten tässä
tapauksessa olisi kysymys jonkunlaisesta jatkuvasta siitosvalinnasta. (TT1/4)
Erinomaiset eläimet tuottavat tavanomaisesti enemmän jälkeläisiä kuin huonommat, joten tässäkin
tapauksessa on meneillään tiedostamaton valinta. (TT2/4)
The term used in TT1, siitosvalinta, could be translated directly as breeding selection. The term
opted for by TT2, tiedostamaton valinta, is a word-for-word translation of the term unconscious
selection used in ST. TT2 could arguably be called as being more loyal to the original in this matter.
Example 11
…joka erilaistumisen aatteen mukaan eroaa enemmän A:sta kuin muunnos a1. (TT1/10)
…joka ominaisuuksien erilaistumisen periaatteen mukaisesti eroaa enemmän lajista A kuin muunnos
A1. (TT2/10)
The main focus of Example 5 is the difference between words aate (cause, ideology) and periaate
(principle). The term used in ST is principle. Although aate may have meant principle in the past,
51
modern dictionaries such as Kielitoimiston sanakirja (2016) do not recognize this meaning. In terms
of this term, TT2 is more up-to-date.
Example 12
…kasveissa tämä jalostuminen on selvästi havaittavissa lisääntyneestä koosta ja kauneudesta, joka pistää
silmäämme orvokin, ruusun, pelargoniumin, georginin y.m. kasvien muunnoksissa, verratessamme niitä
vanhempiin muunnoksiin ja kantalajeihin. (TT1/5)
Prosessi lisää kokoa ja kauneutta, kuten nyt voidaan nähdä orvokeissa, ruusuissa, pelargonioissa,
daalioissa ja muissa kasveissa, kun niitä verrataan aikaisempiin muunnoksiin tai kantamuotoihin. (TT2/5)
Pelargonium used in TT1 is the Latin name of the genus, whereas TT2’s pelargonioissa is based
on the Finnish name of the genus, nowadays commonly used in gardening. The story behind
georgini and daalia is a bit more peculiar; the genus Dahlia was originally known as Georgina
after German-Russian botanist Johan Georgin, but the name was changed. Dahlia is derived from
Swedish botanist Anders Dahl, after whom the genus is named (Perinnepiha). Nowadays dahlia and
daalia are the widely recognized name.
Example 13
Voimakkaimpana näemme tämän taipumuksen juovikkaisuuteen esiintyvän useiden mitä erilaisimpien
lajien sekasikiöissä. (TT1/12)
Taipumus raidallisuuteen on vahvin kaikkein erilaisimpien lajien risteytymien välillä. (TT2/12)
Bank of Finnish Terminology on Arts and Sciences considers sekasikiö, risteymä and hybridi
synonyms. While technically still correct, sekasikiö has negative connotations in some contexts,
and is often used in relation to something ugly, unpleasant or unwanted. Risteymä is more neutral in
tone.
Example 14
Pitkin länsirannikkoa, jolla asustaa omituinen merieläimistö, ovat tertiari maatumat niin heikosti
kehittyneitä, etteivät ne luultavasti tule kaukaiseen tulevaisuuteen säilyttämään mitään kertomusta
toisiaan seuraavista erikoisista merieläimistöistä. (TT1/18)
Pitkin koko länsirannikkoa, jolla elää erikoista merieläimistöä, tertiäärikautiset kerrostumat ovat niin
niukkoja, etteivät ne todennäköisesti kykene säilyttämään todisteita useista peräkkäisistä
merieläimistöistä. (TT2/18)
Tertiari and maatuma are not found in the Bank of Finnish Terminology on Arts and Sciences.
Tertiäärikausi and kerrostuma are recognized.
52
Example 15
…vaikka sinne aikojen kuluessa on täytynyt laskeutua runsaasti lietettä, päättäen siitä, että rantakalliot
ovat tavattomasti kuluneet ja mereen laskee mutaisia virtoja. (TT1/18)
…vaikka sedimenttitarjonnan täytyy olla suurta, kuten rantakallioiden valtavasta rapautumisesta ja
mutaisten jokivesien valumisesta mereen voi päätellä. (TT2/18)
ST uses supply for sediment, which has been translated as laskeutua runsaasti lietettä and
sedimenttitarjonnan. Bank of Finnish Terminology on Arts and Sciences defines liete as “a
pumpable mixture of solids and fluid”, while sedimentti is defined as the matter of particles on the
bottom of a body of water. The meaning of both translations is the same. However, it is interesting
to note that TT1 has opted for a more domesticating approach, as liete is a common Finnish word,
whereas TT2 has opted for a special-field term sedimentti. Sedimentti may not have been known to
readers of TT1, but it is common stock in modern Finnish.
Additionally, TT1 has opted for a general word kuluminen for degradation, while TT2 uses
rapautuminen, defined as “slow crumbling of rock material” by the Bank of Finnish Terminology
on Arts and Sciences. In terms of modern Finnish, TT2 is therefore more accurate than TT1.
Example 16
Selitys on epäilemättä se, että littoraliset ja sublittoraliset kerrostumat myötäänsä kuluvat
pois…(TT1/18)
Selitys on epäilemättä rantavyöhykkeen kerrostumien jatkuva kuluminen pois... (TT2/18)
In Example 16 above, TT1 opted for more accurate terminology. The terms used in ST, littoral and
sub-littoral deposits, have been directly translated in TT1 as littoraliset ja sublittoraliset
kerrostumat. Although the terms are nowadays spelled differently (litoraali and sublitoraali), they
are recognized by the Bank of Finnish Terminology on Arts and Sciences. In contrast to Example
12, TT2 has here opted for a general-level term rantavyöhykkeen kerrostumat, which is less precise
than the one used in TT1. The reason for this is not clear: perhaps the translator considered it excess
information, or more available for layman-readers.
Example 17
Mutta koska vuoriharjanteet, erämaat y. m. eivät ole yhtä ylipääsemättömiä eivätkä nähtävästi yhtä
vanhaa alkuperää kuin mannermaita erottavat valtameret… (TT1/19)
Korkeiden ja yhtenäisten vuorijonojen ja aavikoiden eri puolilla ja toisinaan jopa suurten jokien
vastarannoilla on erilaista lajistoa. (TT2/19)
53
Erämää (wilderness) has been replaced with aavikko (desert). The term used in ST was great
deserts. According to The New Dictionary of Modern Finnish, erämaa is an archaic equivalent for
aavikko. Although TT1 may seem inaccurate to a modern reader, it was just as accurate as TT2
when it was first published. The difference is related to natural language change.
5.2.3
Omissions
As noted earlier in section 4.1, TT1 is almost 400 words longer than TT2. The most obvious
possible explanation for this would be an omission of some sort. However, only one clear case of
omission of semantic content was found. In context it can be said that the sentence was most likely
omitted because of irrelevancy.
Example 18
Kaikki parhaat kasvattajat ovat tätä menettelyä vastaan, paitsi toisinaan lähisukuisten alarotujen välillä; ja
kun risteytys on tapahtunut, niin mitä tarkin valinta on vielä paljon välttämättömämpi kuin
tavallisesti. (TT1/2)
…ja kaikki parhaat kasvattajat vastustavat kovasti tätä käytäntöä, paitsi joskus lähisukuisten alalajien
välillä. (TT2/2)
It is safe to say that the difference in the lengths of TT1 and TT2 cannot be a result of significant
omissions of semantic content. Instead, it seems that TT2 is shorter due omissions of a few words
here and there throughout the text. I have decided to call these flavour omissions, as their purpose
seems to be to place emphasis on other words instead of conveying information themselves. There
were numerous examples of this throughout the excerpts, some of which are exemplified below.
Example 19:
Jos jollekin on suotu nämä ominaisuudet ja jos hän tutkii alaansa vuosikausia, omistaen sille koko
elämänsä järkähtämättömällä lujuudella, niin hän menestyy ja saa aikaan suuria parannuksia. (TT1/2)
Jos hän on tässä suhteessa lahjakas ja opiskelee aihetta vuosien ajan sisukkaasti, hän onnistuu ja saa
aikaan suuria parannuksia. (TT2/2)
Example 20:
Sillä miksi olisi hedelmättömyys niin äärettömän eriasteista eri lajeja risteytettäessä, joille kaikille luulisi
olevan yhtä tärkeätä, että niiden toisiinsa-sekaantuminen tulisi estetyksi? (TT1/16)
Miksi monenasteista hedelmättömyyttä esiintyy risteytystilanteissa, jos pitää kuitenkin olettaa, että on
yhtä tärkeää estää kaikkia lajeja sekaantumasta? (TT2/16)
This finding can be attributed to the norm of conciseness (Korpela 1996: 4.3, Vehmas-Lehto 1989:
56), which is a prevalent norm in contemporary non-fiction. There is a clear tendency to favour
54
concise communication in informative texts. It seems that TT2 often opts for a solution that conveys
the same message more concisely, resulting in shorter sentences and overall less text, while TT1
does not shy away from longer, more poetic expressions.
5.2.4
Visibility of the writer and the reader
As shown in section 5.1.1, TT1 favoured imperative mood while TT2 favoured indicative mood.
This results in TT2 feeling more passive and distant from the reader than TT1. This was also noted
in the qualitative analysis: TT1 addressed the reader or otherwise includes the reader on multiple
occasions, as illustrated in Examples 21 and 22 below.
Example 21
Verratkaapa englantilaista kirjekyyhkystä lyhytotsaiseen kuperkeikkakyyhkyseen ja huomatkaa
nokkien ihmeellinen erilaisuus, jota seuraa vastaava pääkallojen erilaisuus. (TT1/1)
Esimerkiksi englantilaista kirjekyyhykä ja lyhytnokkaista kuperkeikkakyyhkyä verrattaessa huomio
kiinnittyy niiden nokkien hämmästyttävän suureen eroon sekä sitä vastaavaan eroon lintujen kalloissa.
(TT2/1)
Example 22
Katsokaapa kuinka erilaisia ovat kaali-kasvin lehdet ja kuinka tavattoman yhtäläisiä kukat! (TT1/3)
Kuinka erilaisia kaalien lehdet ovat, mutta kuinka samanlaisia niiden kukat. (TT2/3)
In addition to verb mood, section 5.1.1 also showed significant differences in person of verbs. First
person plural forms, such as menkäämme or tehkäämme, were relatively common in TT1, but
entirely unused in TT2. TT2, on the other hand, used more third person singular forms, such as
kannattaa, tapahtuu, and tuottaa, which are more neutral. Example 23 below shows a common case
of TT1 opting for a PL1 form, while TT2 chooses to avoid it. Again, TT2 is more objective and
distant from the reader.
Example 23
Vanhimpia ja puhtaimpia erivärisiä rotuja keskenään risteyttäessä näemme, kuinka 102 sekasikiössä
esiintyy voimakkaana taipumus sinertävän värin ja mainittujen juovien sekä kirjailujen uudelleen
ilmaantumiseen. (TT1/12)
Kun vanhimpia ja puhtaimpia rotuja risteytetään, on sinisellä värillä sekä juovilla ja merkeillä voimakas
taipumus ilmaantua uudelleen risteymissä. (TT2/12)
In general, it seems that person is faded out from TT2, while it is clearly evident in TT1. TT2
favours passive, as illustrated in example below.
55
Example 24
…sillä näin niiden heti innokkaasti tarttuvan F. fuscan koteloihin…(TT1/13)
…ja sen on nähty hyökkäävän hurjasti toisia muurahaisia vastaan. (TT2/13)
As shown in section 5.1.4, there were major differences between TT1 and TT2 in personal pronoun
use. Although the sample size was small, a total of 34 personal pronouns in both texts, the
differences were striking. TT1 used over twice as many pronouns as TT2. The difference in first
person plural me is especially interesting: it was used eight times in TT1, but only once in TT2.
Examples 18 and 19 below illustrate some of the differences in personal pronoun use between the
two texts: TT2 has a tendency to avoid using personal pronouns, which are often replaced by
generic persona (Example 25), passive (Example 26) or inflection.
Example 25
Samoin, jos luonnon lajien joukossa katselemme hyvin selvästi eroavia sukulaismuotoja, kuten esim.
hevosta ja tapiiria, ei meillä ole mitään syytä olettaa, että milloinkaan on ollut olemassa suoranaisia
välimuotoja, jotka yhdistivät kummankin lajin yhteiseen kantamuotoon. (TT1/17)
Tarkasteltaessa hyvin erilaisia luonnonlajeja, kuten esimerkiksi hevosta ja tapiiria, ei ole syytä olettaa
niiden välillä koskaan olleen välimuotoja. (TT2/17)
Example 26
Me näemme hevosen suvun eri lajien yksinkertaisen muuntumisen kautta tulevan juovikkaiksi, joko
jaloistaan kuten sebra tai lavoistaan kuten aasi. (TT1/12)
Useiden hyvin erillisten hevosen suvun lajien nähdään saavan yksinkertaisen muuntelun kautta raitoja
jalkoihinsa raitoja kuten seepralla tai lapoihinsa kuin aasilla. (TT2/12)
As the examples above illustrate, TT1 has a tendency to include the reader, while TT2 mostly
avoids addressing the reader. However, this does not mean that the writer is completely faded out
from TT2: Darwin is still present in the text, but not to the same extent as in TT1. As a result of all
this, it can be argued that TT2 is stylistically more objective than TT1. This tendency to hide the
writer and view the subject matter from a distance can be linked to the norm of objectivity
(Luukka 2002: 20–21), which is one of the most well-known and respected norms of scientific
writing.
56
6
Conclusion
The main goals of this study were to find out whether the differences between the two translations
can be attributed to changes in the norms of translating non-fiction, and if so, how these changes
manifest themselves in the translations. Additionally, I wanted to test whether combining a
statistical method and text analysis was a viable method for studying translation norms.
As far as I am concerned, all of the goals set for this study were met. The quantitative analysis
showed that there are significant differences between the two translations’ distribution of textual
and grammatical features. However, this result alone does not tell us anything about norms of
translation. Because of this, the statistical analysis had to be accompanied by a qualitative textual
analysis. Many of the results of the statistical analysis were supported by the findings of the
qualitative analysis, proving the two methods to be mutually beneficial. Most importantly, I think I
succeeded in linking some of my findings to translation norms discovered from various extratextual
sources, ranging from language guides to previous research on translation norms.
In my opinion, the most severe shortcoming of the study is the lack of information about old norms
and normative pronouncements. I was hoping I would be able to find sources that described the
translation norms of non-fiction (or just norms of non-fiction) that were prevalent during the early
20th century, which would have allowed me to compare the two translations and the norms behind
them. However, it turned out that such sources are either terribly difficult to come by or nonexistent. I was able to find some sources related to norms of non-fiction translation, but they
discussed even earlier phases of written Finnish, and were of no use. Because of this, I have mainly
focused on explaining the differences between the two translations in terms of modern translation
norms.
The statistical analysis showed that the two translations differ from each other significantly in the
distribution of verb infinitive forms, person of verbs, and possessive suffixes. More thorough
analysis revealed that the prevalence of infinitive forms and possessive suffixes in TT1 was
explained by a high number of non-finite clauses, which utilize both of these textual features. Since
non-finite clauses are often considered more ambiguous than subordinating clauses, this finding was
linked to the norm of readability and clarity of information, which seems to be a common norm
in contemporary translation of non-fiction. This result shows that TT2 seems to favour sentences
that are easy to comprehend while maintaining their informative content. Additionally, the style of
the original has been toned down on many occasions to improve the readability of the text.
57
As expected, there were differences in the terminology of the two translations. Finnish biological
terminology has changed greatly during the last hundred years, resulting in many term choices of
the first translation feeling outdated or archaic. However interesting these findings may be, they can
scarcely be explained by changes of norms, as the norm has remained the same. In fact, the norm of
accurate terminology has been important in non-fiction translation since the 19th century. Updating
terminology is a natural result of language change.
The qualitative analysis revealed that the difference in the lengths of TT1 and TT2 could be at least
partially explained by TT2’s tendency to omit a few words here and there. I have called such
occurrences flavour omissions, as the omitted words often carried little to no information. As a
result, TT2 feels stylistically more neutral and objective than TT1, which in turn feels more poetic. I
have linked this finding to the norm of conciseness.
The qualitative analysis also showed that TT1 and TT2 differ greatly in the way both the reader and
the writer are presented in the text. It was discovered that TT2 often opts for forms that hide or fade
out the writer by using passive voice or generic persona, which results in a more neutral tone. On
the other hand, TT1 often includes both the writer and the reader in the text by using more
possessive suffixes, first and second personof verbs, and personal pronouns. This finding was
linked to the norm of objectivity common in scientific discourse.
Overall it can be said that the most striking differences between the two translations are related to
syntax. The analysis showed that TT1’s sentences were significantly longer than TT2’s, utilizing
more complex syntax, including plenty of nested sentences and non-finite clauses. Had I known this
beforehand, I would most likely have focused this entire study on syntactic analysis, as it turned out
to be the most fruitful part of the material in terms of changes. Unfortunately a full clause analysis
of the research material was beyond the scope of this study, as it would have required excessive
amounts of work to conduct. A more detailed analysis of the syntax of translated non-fiction –
perhaps utilizing corpus-methods and larger amounts of research material – would be an interesting
area for future research.
58
References
Research material
Darwin, C. 1913. Lajien synty luonnollisen valinnan kautta eli luonnon suosimien rotujen
säilyminen taistelussa olemassaolosta. Translated by A.R. Koskimies. Hämeenlinna: Karisto.
Darwin, C. 2009. Lajien synty luonnollisen valinnan kautta, eli, Luonnon suosimien rotujen
säilyminen olemassaolon taistelussa. Translated by Pertti Ranta. Tampere: Vastapaino.
Works cited
Aho, Tuomo, Mänttäri, Pia. 2007. Tietokirjallisuuden suomennoksista 1900-luvulla. In
Suomennoskirjallisuuden historia 1. Eds. Riikonen, H.K., Kovala, Urpo, Kujamäki, Pekka,
Paloposki, Outi. Helsinki: SKS. 553–565.
Bahtin, Mihail. 1987. The Dialogic Imagination. Texas: University of Texas.
Bank of Finnish Terminology in Arts and Sciences. <url:
http://tieteentermipankki.fi/wiki/Termipankki:Etusivu>. Accessed 4 November 2015.
Bensimon, Paul. 1990. “Présentation”. Palimpsestes XIII (4): ix–xiii.
Berman, Antoine. 1990. “La Retraduction comme espace de traduction.” Palimpsestes 13 (4): 1–7.
Brisset, Annie. 2004. ”Retraduire ou le corps changeant de la connoissance. Sur l’historicité de la
traduction.” Palimpsestes 15: 39–67.
Brownlie, Siobhan. 2006. Narrative theory and retranslation theory. Across languages and cultures
7 (2). 145–170.
Chesterman, Andrew. 1997. Memes of translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory.
Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins.
Chesterman, Andrew. 1998. Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chesterman, Andrew. 1999. Description, Explanation, Prediction: A Response to Gideon Toury and
Theo Hermans. In Translation and Norms. Ed. Schäffner, Christina. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters. 90–105.
Chesterman, Andrew. 2007. Kääntämisen normit. In Suomennoskirjallisuuden historia 2. Eds.
Riikonen, H.K., Kovala, Urpo, Kujamäki, Pekka, Paloposki, Outi. Helsinki: SKS. 357–364.
Finnlectura. Infinitiivit. <URL: http://www.finnlectura.fi/verkkosuomi/Morfologia/sivu25221.htm
4.3.2015>. Accessed 18 February 2015.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. 2004. The Position of Translated Literature Within the Literary Polysystem. In
The Translation Studies Reader: Second Edition. Ed. Venuti, Lawrence. New York: Routledge.
199–204.
Flood, Alison. 2012. On the Origin of Species voted most influential academic book in history. The
Guardian. 10 November 2015. <url: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/10/on-theorigin-of-species-voted-most-influential-academic-book-charles-darwin>. Accessed 14 December
2015.
Goldschmidt, Georges-Arthur. 2001. Peter Handke übersetzen. In Sprachvergleich und
Übersetzungsvergleich. Ed. Albrecth, J, Gauger, H-M. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 400–412.
59
Helin, Irmeli. 2005. Kääntäjä ja yhteiskunta – uudelleenkääntämisen yhteiskunnallinen viitekehys.
In Kielen matkassa multimediaan. Näkökulmia kääntämisen tutkimiseen ja opiskelemiseen. Ed. YliJokipii, H. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. 145–164.
Hermans, Theo. 1999a. Translation and normativity. In Translation and Norms. Ed. Schäffner,
Christina. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 50–71.
Hermans, Theo. 1999b. Translation in Systems. Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches
Explained. Manchester: St Jerome.
Jackson, Jay M. 1960. Structural Characteristics of Norms. In The Dynamics of Instructional
Group: Sociopsychological Aspects of Teaching and Learning. Ed. Henry, Nelson B. Chicago:
Chicago University Press. 136–163.
Jääskeläinen, Jukka. 2006. Jotta lukijan ei tarvitse kääntää. In Tieto Kirjaksi. Eds. Jussila, Raimo,
Ojanen, Eero, Tuominen, Taija. Saarijärvi: Kansanvalistusseura. 238–247.
Kielitoimiston sanakirja. 2016. Kotimaisten kielten verkkojulkaisuja 35. Helsinki: Kotimaisten
kielten keskus. <url: http://www.kielitoimistonsanakirja.fi/>. Accessed 5 February 2016.
Kolehmainen, Taru. 2009. ”Kielenhuoltoa svetisismien varjossa”. Kielikello 3/2009. <url:
http://www.kielikello.fi/index.php?mid=2&pid=11&aid=2030>. Accessed 19 November 2015.
Koponen, J-M. 2009. ”Vanhat suosikit kiinnostavat suomalaislukijoita”. <url:
http://yle.fi/uutiset/vanhat_suosikit_kiinnostavat_suomalaislukijoita/5247793>. Accessed 3
December 2015.
Koskinen, Kaisa. 1995. Caught in the Web. A Derridean-Bakhtinian View of Inter-textuality and
Translation. In Aspectus Varii Translationis. Eds Oittinen, Riitta, Varonen, Jukka-Pekka. Tampere:
Tampere University.
Koskinen, Kaisa and Paloposki, Outi. 2010. Retranslation. In Handbook of Translation Studies
Vol.1. Eds. Gambier, Yves, van Doorslaer, Luc. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 294–298.
Korhonen, Riitta and Lappalainen, Hanna. 2013. “Kieli muuttuu – rikkautta vai rappiota?”
Kielikello 4/2013. <url: http://www.kielikello.fi/index.php?mid=2&pid=11&aid=2651>. Accessed 8
December 2015.
Korpela, Jukka. 1996. Kirjoita asiaa. <url: https://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/kirj/index.html>.
Accessed 5 November 2015.
Korpela, Jukka. 2004. Nykyajan kielenopas. <url:
https://www.cs.tut.fi/~jKorpela/kielenopas/index.html>. Accessed 5 November 2015.
Lefevere, André. 1992. Translation, Rewriting & the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London:
Routledge.
Leikola, Anto. 2013. Biologia. In Suomennetun tietokirjallisuuden historia 1800-luvulta 2000luvulle. Helsinki: SKS. 429–450.
Lounela, Mikko. 2008. Tekstien kvantitatiivisia piirteitä: teksti ja tekstijoukko määrällisten
muuttujien valossa. <url:
http://www.kotus.fi/nyt/esitelmat_ja_artikkelit/artikkeliarkisto/tekstien_ja_niiden_lajien_rajankaynt
ia/tekstien_kvantitatiivisia_piirteita> . Accessed 19 November 2014.
Luukka, Minna-Riitta. 2002. Mikä tekee tekstistä tieteellisen. In Tieteellinen kirjoittaminen. Eds.
Kinnunen, Merja, Löytty, Olli. Tampere: Vastapaino. 13–28.
60
Löytty, Olli. Käsikirjoituksesta kirjaksi. In Tieteellinen kirjoittaminen. Eds. Kinnunen, Merja,
Löytty, Olli. Tampere: Vastapaino. 161–174.
Markkanen, K. 1999. (Self-) Censoring a classic - Orwell's 1984 re-issued in uncut translation. <url:
http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/thisweek/38071999.html>. Accessed 19 November 2014.
Montgomery, Scott L. 2000. Science in Translation. Movements of Knowledge Through Cultures
and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mäkinen, Pirjo. 2008. Ikinuori lähdeteksti, ikääntyvä kohdeteksti? In Alussa oli käännös. Eds.
Oittinen, Riitta, Mäkinen, Pirjo. Tampere: Tampere University Press. 407–425.
Mäntynen, Anne. 2012. ”Kieli-ideologiat käytännössä: sanajärjestyksen normittuminen tietokirjojen
suomennostyössä”. Virittäjä 2/2012.
New Dictionary of Modern Finnish. <url: http://www.kielitoimistonsanakirja.fi/. Accessed 5
November 2015.
Oittinen, Riitta. 1997. Liisa, Liisa ja Alice: matkakirja. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Paaskoski, Jyrki. 2008. Oppineiden yhteisö: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia 1908–2008. Helsinki:
Otava.
Paloposki, Outi. 2000. “Nerontuotteita Maailmankirjallisuudesta” – Suomennosten historia 1800luvulta nykypäivään. In Käännöskirjallisuus ja sen kritiikki. Eds. Paloposki, Outi, Makkonen-Craig,
Henna. Helsinki: AKO. 20–33.
Paloposki, Outi: 2011. Tietokirjallisuuden suomentaminen. In Kääntämisen tekstilajit ja tekstilajin
kääntäminen. Helsinki: Finn Lectura. 51–66.
Paloposki, Outi, Koskinen, Kaisa. 2001. A thousand and one translations – revisiting translation. In
Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies: Selected Contributions from the EST
Congress. Eds. Hansen, Gyde, Malmkjaer, Kirsten, Gile, Daniel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 27–
38.
Paloposki, Outi, Riikonen, H.K.. 2013. Suomennetun tietokirjallisuuden kritiikistä. In Suomennetun
tietokirjallisuuden historia 1800-luvulta 2000-luvulle. Eds. Paloposki, Outi, Riikonen, H.K..
Helsinki: SKS. 599–616.
Perinnepiha. <url: http://perinnepiha.fi/tarhadaalia-dahlia-x-hortensis/> Accessed 4 November
2015.
Puurtinen, Tiina. 2008. Käännösten hyväksyttävyys. In Alussa oli käännös. Eds. Oittinen, Riitta,
Mäkinen, Pirjo. Tampere: Tampere University Press. 82–94.
Ranta, Pertti. 2009. Suomentajan jälkikatsaus. In Darwin, C. 2009. Lajien synty luonnollisen
valinnan kautta, eli, Luonnon suosimien rotujen säilyminen olemassaolon taistelussa. Tampere:
Vastapaino. 419–421.
Riikonen, H.K. 2000. Käännöskritiikin historiasta: suuntaviivoja ja esimerkkejä. In
Käännöskirjallisuus ja sen kritiikki. Eds. Paloposki, Outi, Makkonen-Craig, Henna. Helsinki: AKO.
20–33.
Saukkonen, Pauli. 1984. Mistä tyyli syntyy. Juva: WSOY.
Sorvali, Irma, Häkkinen, Kaisa. 2007. Kieli muuttuu, entä käännöskieli? In
Suomennoskirjallisuuden historia 2. Eds. Riikonen, H.K., Kovala, Urpo, Kujamäki, Pekka,
Paloposki, Outi. Helsinki: SKS. 376–386.
61
Suomen kielen tulevaisuus: kielipoliittinen toimintaohjelma. <url:
http://scripta.kotus.fi/www/verkkojulkaisut/julk7/suomen_kielen_tulevaisuus_kotus_verkkojulkaisu
ja_7.pdf>. Accessed 19 November 2014.
Suomen tietokirjailijat ry. <url:
http://www.suomentietokirjailijat.fi/jasenyys/liittyminen/tietokirjallisuuden-lajit/>. Accessed 4
December 2015.
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 1985. Argumentative text structure and translation. Jyväskylä: University
of Jyväskylä.
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 2007. Kääntämisen tutkimuksen nykysuuntauksia. In
Suomennoskirjallisuuden historia 2. Eds. Riikonen, H.K., Kovala, Urpo, Kujamäki, Pekka,
Paloposki, Outi. Helsinki: SKS. 346–356.
Toury, Gideon. 1980. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Jerusalem: Academic Press.
Toury, Gideon. 1999. A Handful of Paragraphs on ’Translation’ and ’Norms’. In Translation and
Norms. Ed. Schäffner, Christina. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 9–31.
Toury, Gideon. 2004. The Nature and Role of Norms in Translation. In The Translation Studies
Reader: Second Edition. Ed. Venuti, Lawrence. New York: Routledge. 205–218.
Toury, Gideon. 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies – And Beyond (Revised Edition). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Valtonen, Elisa. 2010. Humisevat harjut. Vanha ja uusi suomennos nykylukijoiden silmin. [Pro
Gradu. University of Tampere, School of Language, Translation and Literary Studies, English
Language, Literature and Translation.]
Vanderschelden, Isabelle. 2000. Why retranslate the French classics? In On Translating French
Literature and Film II. Ed. Salama-Carr, Myriam. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 1–18.
Wyhe, John Van. 2002. The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online. <url: http://darwinonline.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_OntheOriginofSpecies.html>. Accessed 18 February
2015
Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri. 1989. Quasi-correctness: a critical study of Finnish translations of Russian
journalistic texts. Helsinki: Neuvostoliitto-Instituutti.
Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri: 2011. Lähtötekstin ja käännöksen suhde kvantitatiivisesta näkökulmasta. In
Kääntämisen tekstilajit ja tekstilajin kääntäminen. Helsinki: Finn Lectura. 29–50.
Venuti, Lawrence. 1992. Rethinking translation. Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. London, New
York: Routledge.
Virtaniemi, Asta. “Kiiloja ja sokkeloita. Säädöskielen virke- ja lauserakenteen ongelmia.”
Kielikello 4/1992. <url: http://www.kielikello.fi/index.php?mid=2&pid=11&aid=867>. Accessed
19 December 2015.
Voutilainen, A, Purtonen, T, Muhonen, K. 2012. FinnTreeBank2 Manual. University of Helsinki.
<url:
http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/kieliteknologia/tutkimus/treebank/sources/FinnTreeBankManual.pdf>.
Accessed 20 February 2015.
62
VISK = Hakulinen, A, Vilkuna, M, Korhonen, R, Koivisto, V, Heinonen, T.R., Alho, Irja. 2004. Iso
suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: SKS. Online version. Accessed 15 February 2015. <URL:
http://scripta.kotus.fi/visk>
63
Appendix 1: Excerpts from the old translation
Appendix 1: Excerpts from the old translation
TT1/1
Ollen sitä mieltä, että on aina paras tutkia jotakin erikoista ryhmää, olen tarkasti
harkittuani valinnut siihen tarkotukseen kotikyyhkyset. Olen kasvattanut kaikkia rotuja, joita
saatoin ostaa tai muuten hankkia ja minulle on suosiollisesti lähetetty nahkoja eri maailman
kulmilta, eritotenkin ovat niitä lähettäneet W. Elliot Intiasta ja C. Murray Persiasta. Paljon
tutkielmia on julkaistu eri kielillä kyyhkysistä ja monet niistä, ollen sangen vanhoja, ovat
hyvin huomattavia. Olen asettunut yhteyteen useiden etevien kyyhkyskasvattajain kanssa ja
minun on sallittu liittyä kahden Lontoon kyyhkysklubin jäseneksi. Kyyhkysrotujen
erilaisuus on jotakin hämmästyttävää. Verratkaapa englantilaista kirjekyyhkystä
lyhytotsaiseen kuperkeikkakyyhkyseen ja huomatkaa nokkien ihmeellinen erilaisuus, jota
seuraa vastaava pääkallojen erilaisuus.
TT1/2
Kuinka huomattavia tuloksia englantilaiset kasvattajat ovat tähän saakka jo
aikaansaaneet, näkyy niistä suunnattomista hinnoista, joita maksetaan eläimistä, joilla on
hyvä sukupuu, ja näitä on viety maasta kaikkiin maailman ääriin. Jalostusta ei yleensä
suinkaan saada aikaan eri rotujen ristisiitoksella. Kaikki parhaat kasvattajat ovat jyrkästi tätä
menettelyä vastaan, paitsi toisinaan lähisukuisten alarotujen välillä; ja kun risteytys on
tapahtunut, niin mitä tarkin valinta on vielä paljon välttämättömämpi kuin tavallisesti. Jos
valinta perustuisi ainoastaan siihen, että olisi erotettava jokin selvä muunnos ja kasvatettava
sitä, niin periaate olisi niin ilmeinen, että siitä tuskin kannattaisi puhua. Mutta sen suuri
tärkeys perustuu vaikutuksiin, jotka syntyvät, kun sukupolvi sukupolvelta kartutetaan
määrättyyn suuntaan eroavaisuuksia, joita, tottumaton silmä ei huomaa ensinkään,
eroavaisuuksia, joita turhaan olen yrittänyt yksitellen huomata. Tuhannen joukossa ei ole
yhtä ihmistä, jolla on kyllin tarkka silmä ja riittävästi arvostelukykyä tullakseen oivalliseksi
kasvattajaksi. Jos jollekin on suotu nämä ominaisuudet ja jos hän tutkii alaansa vuosikausia,
omistaen sille koko elämänsä järkähtämättömällä lujuudella, niin hän menestyy ja saa aikaan
suuria parannuksia. Mutta jos häneltä puuttuu yksikin näistä ominaisuuksista, niin hän
varmasti epäonnistuu. Harvat uskonevat, kuinka paljon luontaista taipumusta ja
vuosikausien harjaantumista vaaditaan tullakseen taitavaksi kyyhkyskasvattajaksikin.
TT1/3
Kasveissa huomaa siitosvalinnan kautta karttuneet vaikutukset vielä erään toisenkin
keinon avulla, nimittäin tarkastamalla saman lajin eri kukkamuunnosten erilaisuutta
kukkatarhassa, vertaamalla lehtien, siemenkotelojen, juurimukulain tai muiden arvokkaiden
osien erilaisuutta kyökkikasvitarhassa samojen muunnosten kukkiin sekä vertaamalla saman
lajin hedelmämuunnosten erilaisuutta hedelmäpuutarhassa vastaaviin lehti‐ ja
kukkamuunnoksiin. Katsokaapa kuinka erilaisia ovat kaali‐ kasvin lehdet ja kuinka
tavattoman yhtäläisiä kukat! Kuinka erilaisia ovat orvokin kukat ja kuinka samanlaisia
lehdet! Kuinka paljon eroavatkaan eri karviaismarjalajien hedelmät toisistaan kooltaan,
väriltään, muodoltaan ja karvaisuudeltaan, ja kumminkin ilmenee kukissa hyvin vähän
eroavaisuutta!
Appendix 1: Excerpts from the old translation
TT1/4
Jos olisikin olemassa niin alhaisella kannalla olevia metsäläisiä, ettei heillä olisi
aavistustakaan siitä, että heidän kotieläintensä ominaisuudet periytyvät niiden jälkeläisiin,
niin he ainakin koettavat huolellisesti säilyttää jokaisen eläimen, joka on heille hyödyllinen
johonkin erikoiseen tarkotukseen, nälänhädän ja muiden onnettomuuksien sattuessa, jotka
niin helposti kohtaavat metsäläisiä. Siten tällaiset valioeläimet tulevat jättämään enemmän
jälkeläisiä kuin huonommat, joten tässä tapauksessa olisi kysymys jonkunlaisesta jatkuvasta
siitosvalinnasta. Me näemme Tulimaan raakalaistenkin panevan arvoa eläimiinsä, he kun
nälänhädän aikoina tappavat ja syövät vanhat naisensa, pitäen heitä vähemmänarvoisina
kuin koiriaan.
TT1/5
Kasveissa tämä jalostuminen, jonka aiheuttaa paraiden yksilöiden satunnainen
säilyminen — olkootpa nuo yksilöt niin eroavia, että niitä heti niiden esiintyessä voidaan
pitää erityisinä muunnoksina tai älkööt ja olkoonpa kahta tai useampia eri lajeja tai rotuja
sekotettu toisiinsa tai älköön — kasveissa tämä jalostuminen on selvästi havaittavissa
lisääntyneestä koosta ja kauneudesta, joka pistää silmäämme orvokin, ruusun,
pelargoniumin, georginin y. m. kasvien muunnoksissa, verratessamme niitä vanhempiin
muunnoksiin ja kantalajeihin. Ei kukaan odottane koskaan saavansa ensiluokkaista orvokkia
tai georginia viljelemättömän kasvin siemenestä. Ei kukaan uskone voivansa kasvattaa
ensiluokkaista mehupäärynää villin päärynäpuun siemenestä, joskin hänen onnistuisi
kasvattaa sellainen kitukasvuisesta, metsistyneestä taimesta, joka on alkuperältään
puutarhalajia. Vaikka päärynää viljeltiin jo klassillisina aikoina, näyttää se Pliniuksen
kuvauksista päättäen silloin olleen varsin vähä‐ arvoinen hedelmä.
TT1/6
Kun siis on päätettävä, onko jokin muoto luettava lajiksi vai muunnokseksi, näyttää
terveen arvostelukyvyn ja laajan kokemuksen omaavien luonnontutkijain mielipide ainoalta
seurattavalta oppaalta. Meidän täytyy kumminkin useissa tapauksissa ratkaista
luonnontutkijain enemmistön mukaan, sillä harvoja selväpiirteisiä ja hyvin tunnettuja
muunnoksia voidaan mainita, joita eivät ainakin muutamat pätevät asiantuntijat olisi
lukeneet lajeiksi.
TT1/7
Että tällaiset epävarmat muutokset eivät suinkaan ole harvinaisia, ei ole
kiellettävissä. Verratessamme eri kasvientutkijäin esittämiä Ison‐ Britannian, Ranskan tai
Yhdysvaltojen kasvioita, näemme kuinka hämmästyttävän monia muotoja toiset
kasvintutkijat pitävät lajeina, toiset pelkkinä muunnoksina. H. G. Watson, jolle olen
kiitollisuuden velassa monesta avustuksesta, on minulle merkinnyt 182 brittiläistä kasvia,
joita tavallisesti pidetään muunnoksina, mutta joita kaikkia kasvientutkijat ovat toisinaan
pitäneet lajeina. Ja kumminkin hän on tätä luetteloa laatiessaan jättänyt huomioon ottamatta
monet vähäiset muunnokset, jotka useat kasvientutkijat ovat lukeneet lajeiksi, sekä
tykkänään sivuuttanut monet kovin polymorfiset suvut.
TT1/8
Pitäen lajeja ainoastaan selväpiirteisinä ja tarkasti määriteltävinä muunnoksina
johduin tekemään sen ennakko‐ otaksuman, että laajempien sukujen lajeista jokaisella
alueella esiintyy muunnoksia useammin kuin pienempien sukujen lajeista. Sillä missä
Appendix 1: Excerpts from the old translation
tahansa on muodostunut useita lähisukuisia (s. o. samaan sukuun kuuluvia) lajeja, siellä
säännöllisesti on parhaillaan muodostumassa paljon muunnoksia ja alulla olevia lajeja.
Missä paljon suuria puita kasvaa, siellä odotamme tapaavamme myöskin vesoja. Siellä,
missä suvusta on muuntelun kautta muodostunut useita lajeja, ovat olosuhteet olleet
muuntelulle suotuisat; ja tästä syystä voimme otaksua, että olosuhteet edelleenkin ovat
muuntelulle suotuisat. Jos sitävastoin pidämme jokaista lajia erikoisen luomistyön
tuloksena, ei ole olemassa mitään nähtävää syytä, miksi monilajisessa ryhmässä esiintyy
enemmän muunnoksia kuin harvalajisessa.
TT1/9
Olemassaolo‐ taistelu on välttämätön seuraus kaikkien elollisten olentojen suuresta
lisääntymistaipumuksesta. Jokaisen olennon, joka luonnollisena elinaikanaan tuottaa useita
munia tai siemeniä, täytyy joutua kärsimään hävitystä jonakin ikäkautenaan, jonakin
vuodenaikana taikkapa satunnaisesti jonakin vuonna, muuten sen lukumäärä karttuisi
geometrisena sarjana tapahtuvan lisääntymisen johdosta nopeasti niin suunnattoman
suureksi, ettei mikään alue voisi elättää sen jälkeisöä. Kun näin syntyy useampia yksilöitä
kuin voi jäädä elämään, on tästä aina seurauksena taistelu olemassaolosta joko kahden
samaan lajiin kuuluvan yksilön, eri lajeihin kuuluvien yksilöiden tai yksilön ja ulkonaisten
olosuhteiden välillä. Tässä meitä kohtaa Malthuksen oppi, sovellettuna monin verroin
ankarampana koko kasvi‐ ja eläinkuntaan. Sillä tässä tapauksessa ei voi tulla kysymykseen
mikään ravinnon keinotekoinen kartuttaminen eikä harkittu pidättäytyminen aviosta.
Olkoonpa, että muutamien lajien lukumäärä tällä haavaa onkin enemmän tai vähemmän
ripeästi kasvamassa; kaikille se ei ole mahdollista, sillä maailma ei voisi tarjota niille tilaa.
TT1/10 Jos nyt nämä kaksi muunnosta ovat muuntelevaisia, säilyvät tavallisesti eroavimmat
niiden muunteluista seuraavien tuhannen sukupolven ajan. Tämän ajan kuluttua oletamme
kuvion a1 muunnoksen tuottaneen muunnoksen a2, joka erilaistumisen aatteen mukaan eroaa
enemmän A:sta kuin muunnos a1. Muunnoksen m1 oletamme tuottaneen kaksi muunnosta,
nimittäin m2 ja s2, jotka eroavat toisistaan ja vielä huomattavammin yhteisestä
esivanhemmastaan A:sta. Voimme seurata tätä kehitystä aste asteelta kuinka pitkälle
tahansa; muutamat muunnokset ovat jokaisen tuhannen sukupolven kuluttua synnyttäneet
yhden ainoan, mutta yhä enemmän erilaistuneen muunnoksen, toiset ovat synnyttäneet kaksi
tai kolme muunnosta, muutamat taas eivät ole synnyttäneet ainoatakaan. Siten yhteisen
vanhemman A:n muunnokset eli toisintuneet jälkeläiset tavallisesti yhä kasvavat luvultaan ja
erilaistuvat ominaisuuksiltaan. Kuviossa on tämä kehitys esitetty kymmenenteen
tuhannenteen sukupolveen saakka, sekä suppeammassa ja yksinkertaistutetussa muodossa
neljänteentoista tuhannenteen polveen saakka.
TT1/11 Niillä Madeiran hyönteisillä, jotka eivät elä maassa ja joiden, kuten esim. eräiden
kukkasista elävien perhosten ja kuoriaisten, täytyy alinomaa käyttää siipiään elantonsa
hankkimiseen, eivät siivet — arvelee Wollaston — suinkaan ole surkastuneet, vaan
päinvastoin suurenneetkin. Tämä sopii aivan hyvin yhteen luonnollisen valinnan
vaikutuksen kanssa. Sillä uuden hyönteislajin tullessa saarelle täytyi luonnollisen valinnan
pyrkimyksenä olla joko suurentaa tai pienentää sen siipiä, riippuen siitä, säilyikö suurempi
joukko yksilöitä sen vuoksi, että nämä kykenivät menestyksellä taistelemaan tuulta vastaan,
vaiko sen vuoksi, että luopuivat koko yrityksestä, ja käyttivät siipiään harvoin tai eivät
Appendix 1: Excerpts from the old translation
milloinkaan. Näiden hyönteisten laita on ollut sama kuin merimiesten, jotka ovat joutuneet
haaksirikkoon lähellä rannikkoa: hyville uimareille on ollut onneksi, jos ovat jaksaneet uida
niin pitkälle kuin suinkin, kun taas huonoille uimareille olisi ollut parempi, jos eivät olisi
osanneet ensinkään uida ja olisivat pysytelleet laivahylyssä.
TT1/12 Mitä on nyt sanottava kaikkien näiden tosiasioiden johdosta? Me näemme hevosen
suvun eri lajien yksinkertaisen muuntumisen kautta tulevan juovikkaiksi, joko jaloistaan
kuten sebra tai lavoistaan kuten aasi. Hevosessa näemme tämän taipumuksen esiintyvän
voimakkaana ruskean värin ohella — väri, joka lähentelee suvun muiden lajien yleisväriä.
Juovien ilmenemisen mukana ei seuraa mitäään muodonmuutosta tai muuta uutta
ominaisuutta. Voimakkaimpana näemme tämän taipumuksen juovikkaisuuteen esiintyvän
useiden mitä erilaisimpien lajien sekasikiöissä. Muistelkaamme nyt tämän seikan yhteydessä
eri kyyhkysrotuja: ne polveutuvat kaikki yhdestä kyyhkyslajista (pari kolme alalajia eli
maantieteellistä rotua siihen luettuna), joka on väriltään sinertävä ja jolla on eräitä
poikkijuovia siivissään y. m. kirjailuja; ja kun jokin rotu yksinkertaisen muuntelun kautta
tulee sinertävän väriseksi, ilmaantuvat nämä juovat ja kirjailut poikkeuksetta uudelleen,
mutta ilman mitään muuta muodon‐ tai ominaisuuksien muutosta. Vanhimpia ja
puhtaimpia erivärisiä rotuja keskenään risteytettäessä näemme, kuinka 102 sekasikiöissä
esiintyy voimakkaana taipumus sinertävän värin ja mainittujen juovien sekä kirjailujen
uudelleen ilmaantumiseen. Olen lausunut todennäköisimmän olettamuksen, minkä avulla
hyvin vanhojen luonteenominaisuuksien jälleen-ilmaantuminen on selitettävissä, olevan sen,
että poikasissa säilyy polvesta polveen taipumus ilmisaattamaan aikoja sitten kadonnut
ominaisuus ja että tämä taipumus toisinaan tuntemattomista syistä pääsee voitolle. Juuri
äsken näimme, kuinka useilla hevosen suvun lajeilla tavattavat juovat ovat selvemmät tai
esiintyvät yleisemmin nuorilla kuin vanhoilla eläimillä. Jos nimitämme kyyhkysrotuja —
joista muutavat ovat satoja vuosia pysyneet muuttumatta — lajeiksi, on niiden laita tässä
suhteessa aivan sama kuin hevosen sukuun kuuluvien lajien. Omasta puolestani uskallan
rohkeasti luoda katseeni taaksepäin monien tuhansien sukupolvien taa ja kuvittelen
mielessäni sebran tapaisesli juovikkaan, mutta kenties aivan toisin rakennetun eläimen, joka
on kesyn hevosemme, (polveutukoon tämä sitten yhdestä tai useammasta villistä lajista),
aasin, hemionuksen, kvaggan ja sebran yhteinen kantamuoto.
TT1/13 Samalla kertaa panin samalle paikalle muutamia erään toisen lajin, F. flavan
koteloita sekä muutaman näitä pieniä keltaisia muurahaisia, jotka vielä riippuivat kiinni
pesänsä kappaleissa. Tätäkin lajia pidetään joskus, vaikka harvoin, orjana, mikäli Smith
kertoo. Vaikka se on pieni laji, on se hyvin rohkea ja minä olen nähnyt sen raivokkaasti
käyvän muiden muurahaisten kimppuun. Kerran löysin hämmästyksekseni riippumattoman
F. flava muurahaisten yhteiskunnan orjia pitävien F. sanguinea muurahaisten keon alla
olevan kiven alta; ja kun sattumalta tulin pöyhineeksi kumpaakin pesää, kävivät
pikkumuurahaiset hämmästyttävällä rohkeudella suurten naapuriensa kimppuun. Nyt olin
utelias näkemään, osaisiko F. sanguinea erottaa F. fuscan kotelot, joista se tavallisesti
kasvattaa orjia, pienen ja raivoisan F. flavan koteloista, joita se harvoin ryöstää. Selvästi
saattoi nähdä, että muurahaiset osasivat tehdä eron niiden välillä, sillä näin niiden heti
innokkaasti tarttuvan F. fuscan koteloihin, kun ne sitävastoin olivat kovin säikähdyksissään
kohdatessaan F. flavan koteloita taikkapa vaan maatakin niiden pesästä ja juoksivat kiireesti
Appendix 1: Excerpts from the old translation
tiehensä; mutta neljännestunnin kuluttua, pian sen jälkeen kuin kaikki keltaiset muurahaiset
olivat menneet tiehensä, ne rohkaisivat mielensä ja kuljettivat pois kotelot.
TT1/14 Katsoen siihen että ohut vaha on hyvin taipuisaa, ei mielestäni ole kovinkaan
ihmeellistä, että mehiläiset työskennellessään kummallakin puolella vahasuikaletta
huomasivat, koska ne olivat jyrsineet vahan sopivan ohueksi ja silloin lakkasivat työstänsä.
Tavallisista kennoista olen luullut huomanneeni, ettei mehiläisten aina onnistu työskennellä
yhtä nopeasti vastakkaisilla puolilla; olen nimittäin huomannut äskenalotetun solun pohjana
puolivalmiita vinoneliöitä, jotka toiselta puolelta, jolla mehiläiset nähtävästi olivat
työskennelleet liian nopeasti, olivat hiukan koveria sekä vastakkaiselta puolelta, jolla
mehiIäiset olivat työskennelleet hitaammin, kuperia. Kerran, kun tämä oli hyvin selvään
huomattavissa, panin kennon takaisin pesään ja annoin mehiläisten jatkaa työtänsä kotvan
aikaa; tarkastaessani sitten uudelleen solua havaitsin, että vinoneliö‐ levy oli laadittu
valmiiksi ja oli nyt aivan tasainen. Koska tuo pieni levy oli äärettömän ohut, oli aivan
mahdotonta, että mehiläiset olisivat aikaansaaneet tämän jyrsimällä kuperaa puolta. Arvelen
että mehiläiset sellaisessa tapauksessa työntävät ja taivuttavat notkeata ja lämmintä vahaa
kummaltakin puolelta (olen koettanut itse tehdä tätä ja havainnut sen helposti käyvän
päinsä), kunnes se on oikeassa asemasssa solujen välissä.
TT1/15 Se tapa, millä mehiläiset rakentavat solunsa, näyttää ensi katsannolla sitäkin
vaikeammalta käsittää, kun tiedämme suuren joukon mehiläisiä olevan laatimassa kutakin
solua. Mehiläinen rakentaa ensin lyhyen ajan yhtä solua, siirtyen sitten toiseen, jopa
niinkin ‐ kuten Hubert mainitsee — että parikymmentä mehiläistä on rakentamassa
ensimäisen solun alkuakin. Olin tilaisuudessa havaitsemaan tämän siten, että sivelin yhden
kuusisärmiön syrjiin tai rakenteilla olevan kennon reunoihin äärettömän ohuelti sulatettua
sinooperilla värjättyä vahaa. Huomasin näet tällöin aina, että mehiläiset olivat irrottaneet
punaisen vahan ja kiinnittäneet värihiukkaset ympärillä olevien solujen reunoihini ohentaen
värin yhtä kevyesti kuin maalari olisi tehnyt sen siveltimellään. Kennon rakentaminen
näyttää olevan jonkinmoista tasapainotyötä monien mehiläisten välillä, jotka kaikki
vaistomaisesti työskentelevät saman suhteellisen välimatkan päässä toisistaan, kaikki
koettavat muovailla yhtäläisiä palloja, sitten rakentaen tai jättäen kovertamatta pallojen
välille väliseinät. Oli todella omituista havaita, kuinka mehiläiset vaikeissa tapauksissa,
esim. kahden kennonkappaleen kulmittaisesti yhtyessä, hajottivat ja rakensivat uudelleen eri
tavalla saman solun, usein palaten muotoon, jonka ne ensin olivat hyljänneet.
TT1/16 Ilmaisevatko nämä monimutkaiset ja omituiset lait nyt sitä, että lajeille on varta
vasten annettu hedelmättömyyden lahja, jotta niiden toisiinsa‐ sekaantuminen luonnossa
estyisi ? En sitä usko. Sillä miksi olisi hedelmättömyys niin äärettömän eriasteista eri lajeja
risteytettäessä, joille kaikille luulisi olevan yhtä tärkeätä, että niiden
toisiinsa‐ sekaantuminen tulisi estetyksi? Miksi hedelmällisyysaste olisi luonnostaan
muuntelevainen saman lajin yksilöissä ? Miksi muutamat lajit risteytyvät helposti ja
kumminkin tuottavat hedelmättömiä jälkeläisiä ja miksi toiset lajit risteytyvät äärettömän
vastahakoisesti ja kumminkin tuottavat varsin hedelmällisiä jälkeläisiä? Miksi samojen
lajien vastavuoroisten risteytysten tulokset usein niin suuresti erkanevat? Miksi, voidaan
Appendix 1: Excerpts from the old translation
myöskin kysyä, on sallittu syntyä sekasikiöitä? Tuntuisi kummalliselta, että lajeille olisi
suotu erityinen kyky tuottaa sekasikiö‐ jälkeläisiä, ja että näiden jatkuva lisääntyminen
sitten olisi tahdottu ehkäistä suuremmalla tai pienemmällä hedelmättömyydellä, joka ei ole
missään tarkassa suhteessa vanhempien ensi risteytymisen helppouteen.
TT1/17 Samoin, jos luonnon lajien joukossa katselemme hyvin selvästi eroavia
sukulaismuotoja, kuten esim. hevosta ja tapiiria, ei meillä ole mitään syytä olettaa, että
milloinkaan on ollut olemassa suoranaisia välimuotoja, jotka yhdistivät kummankin lajin
yhteiseen kantamuotoon. Yhteisen kantamuodon elimistön rakenteella on ollut paljon yleistä
yhtäläisyyttä tapiirin ja hevosen kanssa. Mutta joissakin suhteissa kantamuodon rakenne on
saattanut huomattavasti erota kummankin jälkeläisen rakenteesta, jopa kenties enemmän
kuin nämä eroavat toisistaan. Tämän vuoksi emme kykenisi missään tällaisessa tapauksessa
saamaan selville kahden tai useamman lajin kantamuotoa, vaikka tarkasti vertaisimme
kantamuodon rakennetta sen toisintuneiden jälkeläisten rakenteeseen, jollei meillä ole
katkeamatonta sarjaa välimuotoja.
TT1/18 On luullakseni selitettävissä, miksi geologiset muodostumat ovat jokaisessa seudussa
miltei aina katkonaisia, s. o. eivät seuraa toisiaan tarkassa järjestyksessä. Tutkiessani
useiden satojen engl. penikulmien pituudelta Etelä‐ Amerikan rannikkoja, jotka verraten
myöhäisinä aikoina ovat kohonneet satoja jalkoja, pisti ennen muuta silmääni se seikka,
etten tavannut mitään myöhäisiä maatumia, jotka olisivat olleet kylliksi laajalle ulottuvia
säilyäkseen edes lyhyen geologisen aikakauden. Pitkin länsirannikkoa, jolla asustaa
omituinen merieläimistö, ovat tertiari maatumat niin heikosti kehittyneitä, etteivät ne
luultavasti tule kaukaiseen tulevaisuuteen säilyttämään mitään kertomusta toisiaan
seuraavista erikoisista merieläimistöistä. Jos hiukan mietimme asiaa, selvenee meille, miksei
Etelä‐ Amerikan kohoavalla länsirannikolla missään tapaa laajalle ulottuvia muodostumia,
jotka kätkisivät poveensa myöhäisen tertiari‐ ajan jäännöksiä, vaikka sinne aikojen
kuluessa on täytynyt laskeutua runsaasti lietettä, päättäen siitä, että rantakalliot ovat
tavattomasti kuluneet ja mereen laskee mutaisia virtoja. Selitys on epäilemättä se, että
littoraliset ja sublittoraliset kerrostumat myötäänsä kuluvat pois, niin pian kuin ne maan
hitaan, vähitellen tapahtuvan nousun johdosta ovat joutuneet aallokon vaikutuksen alaisiksi.
TT1/19 Toinen tärkeä seikka, joka kiinnittää huomiotamme luodessamme yleiskatsauksen
eliöiden maantieteelliseen levenemiseen on se, että kaikenlaiset rajat ja vapaata siirtymistä
ehkäisevät esteet ovat läheisessä ja tärkeässä suhteessa eri seutujen asukasten erilaisuuksiin.
Tätä osottaa Uuden ja Vanhan Maailman miltei kaikkien maaeliöiden suuri erilaisuus, paitsi
mannerten pohjois‐ osissa, missä manteret miltei yhtyvät ja missä ilmaston ollessa hieman
nykyisestä eroava, pohjoisen lauhkean vyöhykkeen muodot ovat voineet vapaasti siirtyä
mantereelta toiselle, kuten nykyään varsinaiset arktiset muodot. Samaa osottaa Australian,
Afrikan ja Etelä‐ Amerikan asukasten suuri eroavaisuus samoilla leveysasteilla, sillä nämä
manteret ovat niin eristetyt toisistaan kuin mahdollista. Kullakin mantereella havaitsemme
saman seikan. Korkeiden ja yhdenjaksoisten vuoristoalueiden, suurten erämaiden, jopa
leveiden jokienkin vastakkaisilla puolilla tapaamme erilaisia asujamia. Mutta koska
vuoriharjanteet, erämaat y. m. eivät ole yhtä ylipääsemättömiä eivätkä nähtävästi yhtä
Appendix 1: Excerpts from the old translation
vanhaa alkuperää kuin mannermaita erottavat valtameret, ovat eroavaisuudet paljon
vähäpätöisemmät kuin ne, jotka ovat ominaisia eri mannerten asukkaille.
TT1/20 Ei voida väittää, etteivät lajit ole luonnontilassa minkään muuntelun alaisia, eikä
voida näyttää toteen, että pitkien aikakausien kuluessa tapahtuvan muuntelun määrä on
rajotettu; mitään selvää rajaa ei ole voitu eikä voida vetää lajien ja vakaantuneiden
muunnosten välille. Ei voida väittää risteytyneiden lajien olevan poikkeuksetta
hedelmättömiä ja risteytyneiden muunnosten poikkeuksetta hedelmällisiä, eikä sitäkään, että
hedelmättömyys on jokin luomisessa annettu erikoinen lajintunnus. Se usko, että lajit ovat
muuttumattomia luomia, oli miltei välttämätön niin kauan kuin arveltiin maapallon historian
käsittävän vain lyhyen ajan. Ja nyt, kun olemme saaneet jonkinmoisen käsityksen kuluneen
ajan pituudesta, olemme vain liian kärkkäät enemmittä todisteitta olettamaan geologian
aikakirjojen kertomuksen olevan siksi täydellisen, että se tarjoisi meille selviä todistuksia
lajien muuttumisesta, jos tällaista todella olisi tapahtunut
Appendix 2: Excerpts from the new translation
Appendix 2: Excerpts from the new translation
TT2/1
Uskoen siihen, että aina kannattaa tutkia tarkemmin jotain tiettyä eliöryhmää,
valitsin harkinnan jälkeen kesykyyhkyt. Kasvatin kaikkia rotuja, joita pystyin ostamaan tai
saamaan. Ystävälliset kasvattajat ovat lähettäneet kyyhkynnahkoja eri puolilta maailmaa,
erityisesti kunnianarvoisa W. Elliott Intiasta ja kunnianarvoisa C. Murray Persiasta. Eri
puolilla maailmaa ja eri kielillä on julkaistu monia kyyhkyjä käsitteleviä tutkielmia. Jotkut
niistä ovat huomattavan vanhoja. Liityin yhteen monien tunnettujen kasvattajien kanssa ja
pääsin kahden Lontoon kyyhkynkasvattajaseuran jäseneksi. Kyyhkyrotujen määrä on
hämmästyttävä. Esimerkiksi englantilaista kirjekyyhkyä ja lyhytnokkaista
kuperkeikkakyyhkyä verrattaessa huomio kiinnittyy niiden nokkien hämmästyttävän
suureen eroon sekä sitä vastaavaan eroon lintujen kalloissa.
TT2/2
Se mitä englantilaiset kasvattajat ovat saaneet aikaan, ilmenee niissä tavattoman
korkeissa hinnoissa, joita maksetaan hyvän sukupuun omaavista eläimistä. Näitä eläimiä
viedään miltei kaikkialle maailmaan. Jalostusta ei yleensä saada aikaan risteyttämällä
erilaisia rotuja, ja kaikki parhaat kasvattajat vastustavat kovasti tätä käytäntöä, paitsi joskus
lähisukuisten alalajien välillä. Jos valinta tarkoittaisi vain sitä, että erotettaisiin jokin selvästi
poikkeava muunnos ja pyrittäisiin sitten lisäämään sitä, olisi toimi niin itsestään selvä ettei
siihen juuri kannattaisi kiinnittää huomiota. Valinnan merkitys perustuu siihen, että sen
seurauksena perättäisten sukupolvien ajan kertyvät eroavaisuudet muokkaavat lajia tiettyyn
suuntaan. Eroja ei harjaantumaton silmä huomaa: olen itsekin sitä turhaan yrittänyt. Ei edes
yhdellä ihmisellä tuhannesta ole riittävän tarkkaa silmää ja arvostelukykyä, jota vaaditaan
erinomaiselta kasvattajalta. Jos hän on tässä suhteessa lahjakas ja opiskelee aihetta vuosien
ajan sisukkaasti, hän onnistuu ja saa aikaan suuria parannuksia. Jos häneltä puuttuu jokin
vaadittavista ominaisuuksista, hän epäonnistuu varmasti. Harvat ovat valmiita uskomaan,
kuinka paljon luonnonlahjakkuutta ja vuosien harjaantumista tarvitaan, jotta tulisi edes
taitavaksi kyyhkyjenkasvattajaksi.
TT2/3
Kasveilla voidaan valinnan kasautuvia vaikutuksia tarkkailla vertailemalla saman
lajin eri lajikkeiden kukkien muuntelua kukkatarhassa. Hyötypuutarhassa lehtien, palkojen,
mukuloiden, tai minkä hyvänsä arvokkaan osan, monimuotoisuutta voidaan verrata samojen
lajikkeiden kukkien moninaisuuteen. Kuinka erilaisia kaalien lehdet ovat, mutta kuinka
samanlaisia niiden kukat. Kuinka erilaisia ovat keto-orvokin kukat, mutta kuinka
samanlaisia lehdet. Kuinka paljon eri karviaisten marjat poikkeavat kooltaan, muodoltaan ja
karvaisuudeltaan, mutta kukissa on hyvin vähän eroja.
TT2/4
Jopa villi-ihmiset, jotka ovat niin barbaarisia, etteivät lainkaan ajattele kotieläintensä
periytyviä ominaisuuksia, säästävät silti jonkin erityisen hyödyllisen eläimen nälänhädän tai
muun villi-ihmisten elämässä tyypillisen onnettomuuden kohdatessa. Erinomaiset eläimet
tuottavat tavanomaisesti enemmän jälkeläisiä kuin huonommat, joten tässäkin tapauksessa
on meneillään tiedostamaton valinta. Jopa Tulimaan barbaarit arvostavat eläimiä, koska he
mieluummin tappavat ja syövät vanhat naisensa puutteen aikana, sillä vanhat naiset ovat
heille vähäpätöisempiä kuin koirat.
Appendix 2: Excerpts from the new translation
TT2/5
Kasveissa sama vähittäinen jalostumisprosessi tapahtuu säilyttämällä satunnaisesti
parhaat yksilöt riippumatta siitä, onko niitä mahdollista luokitella erillisiksi muunnoksiksi
vai ei, tai siitä, ovatko ne syntyneet risteytymisen tuloksena vai ei. Prosessi lisää kokoa ja
kauneutta, kuten nyt voidaan nähdä orvokeissa, ruusuissa, pelargonioissa, daalioissa ja
muissa kasveissa, kun niitä verrataan aikaisempiin muunnoksiin tai kantamuotoihin. Kukaan
ei oleta saavansa ensiluokkaista orvokkia tai daaliaa villin kasvin siemenestä. Kukaan ei
odota saavansa ensiluokkaista päärynää villipäärynän siemenestä, vaikka onnistuisikin
kasvattamaan päärynän villiintyneestä taimesta, jos taimi vain on alun perin
puutarhalajiketta. Päärynää on viljelty antiikin ajoista, mutta se vaikuttaa olleen Plinius
vanhemman kuvauksen perusteella hyvin heikkolaatuinen hedelmä.
TT2/6
Näin ollen muodon luokittelu lajiksi tai muunnokseksi on sen varassa, mitä kokeneet
ja arvostelukykyiset luonnontutkijat sanovat. Usein on kuitenkin pakko päättää tutkijoiden
enemmistön mukaan, sillä muutamia selväpiirteisiä ja tunnettuja muunnoksia eivät edes
kaikki pätevät asiantuntijat luokittele lajeiksi.
TT2/7
Näitä epävarmoja muunnoksia on runsaasti. Eri tutkijoiden tekemien IsonBritannian, Ranskan ja Yhdysvaltojen kasvioiden vertailu paljastaa, miten hämmästyttävän
monia muotoja on yksi kasvitieteilijä luokitellut omaksi lajeiksi, mutta toinen pelkiksi
muunnoksiksi. H.C. Watson, jolle olen paljolti kiitollisuudenvelassa, eritteli minulle 182
brittiläistä kasvia, joita yleisesti pidetään muunnoksina, mutta joista jokaisen on joku
botanisti luokitellut omaksi lajikseen, ja Watson oli jättänyt useita polymorfisia sukuja
kokonaan sivuun.
TT2/8
Koska tarkastelin lajeja pelkästään selväpiirteisinä ja tarkkarajaisina muunnoksina,
oletin isojen sukujen lajeilla olevan tietyn maan alueella enemmän muunnoksia kuin pienten
sukujen lajeilla. Siellä, missä on useita lähisukuisia (ts. samaan sukuun kuuluvia) lajeja,
pitäisi yleissäännön mukaan nyt olla syntymässä monia muunnoksia tai lajien esiasteita.
Sieltä, missä kasvaa isoja puita, voi olettaa löytävänsä puiden taimia. Siellä, missä
muuntelun kautta on muotoutunut monia samaan sukuun kuuluvia lajeja, ovat olosuhteet
suosineet muuntelua, ja siksi voitaisiin olettaa, että olosuhteet olisivat edelleenkin
muuntelulle suotuisat. Toisaalta jos lajit tulkitaan luomistapahtuman tuloksiksi, ei ole
mitään syytä, miksi monilajisessa ryhmässä esiintyisi enemmän muunnoksia kuin
vähälajisessa ryhmässä.
TT2/9
Olemassaolon taistelu johtuu väistämättä kaikkien eliöiden taipumuksesta lisääntyä
runsaasti. Jokainen eliö, joka elinaikanaan tuottaa monia munia tai siemeniä, joutuu
kokemaan tuhon jossain elämänsä vaiheessa. Muutenhan niiden lukumäärä kasvaisi
geometrisessä sarjassa niin hillittömäksi, ettei maa kykenisi elättämään kaikkia. Kun siis
yksilöitä syntyy enemmän kuin mitä voi jäädä henkiin, on seurauksena joka tapauksessa
olemassaolon taistelu joko saman lajin tai eri lajien yksilöiden kesken tai
Appendix 2: Excerpts from the new translation
ympäristöolosuhteita vastaan. Olemassaolon taistelu on Malthusin oppi sovellettuna
moninkertaisella voimalla koko eläin- ja kasvikuntaan; siinä ei voida ajatella keinotekoista
lisäruokintaa eikä järkevää pidättäytymistä avioliitosta. Vaikka jotkut lajit voivatkin nyt
lisääntyä nopeasti, se ei ole kaikille lajeille mahdollista, koska maailma ei pystyisi niitä
elättämään.
TT2/10 Jos sitten nämä kaksi muunnosta ovat itsekin muuntelevia, kaikkein eniten muista
poikkeava muunnos yleensä säilyy seuraavat tuhat sukupolvea. Tämän jälkeen muunnoksen
a1 uskotaan tuottaneen muunnoksen a2, joka ominaisuuksien erilaistumisen periaatteen
mukaisesti eroaa enemmän lajista A kuin muunnos A1. Muunnoksen m1 oletetaan tuottaneen
kaksi muunnosta, m2:n ja s2:n, jotka eroavat toisistaan ja vielä enemmän yhteisestä
vanhemmastaan A:sta. Tätä kehityskulkua voidaan jatkaa kuinka pitkään tahansa. Jotkut
muunnoksista tuottavat kunkin tuhannen sukupolven jälkeen vain yhden uuden
muunnoksen, mutta entistä muuttuneemmissa olosuhteissa. Jotkut tuottavat kaksi tai kolme
uutta muunnosta, kun taas jotkut eivät tuota yhtään. Yhteisen vanhemman A muunnosten tai
muuntuneiden jälkeläisten määrä kasvaa ja ne poikkeavat ominaisuuksiltaan entistä
enemmän toisistaan. Kaaviossa tätä kehitystä seurataan kymmenenteentuhanteen
sukupolveen sekä tiivistetysti ja yksinkertaistetusti neljänteentoistatuhanteen sukupolveen
saakka.
TT2/11 Siivet eivät ole lainkaan surkastuneet, vaan jopa suurentuneet niillä Madeiran
hyönteisillä, jotka eivät etsi ravintoaan maasta ja joiden täytyy ravinnonhaussa
kovakuoriaisten ja perhosten tapaan turvautua siipiinsä. Tämä on täysin luonnonvalinnan
mukaista. Kun uusi hyönteinen saapui saarelle, luonnonvalinnan pyrkimys suurentaa tai
pienentää sen siipiä riippui siitä, selvisikö suurehko yksilöjoukko taistelusta tuulia vastaan
vai luopuivatko hyönteiset yrityksestään ja lensivät vain harvoin jos koskaan. Samoin
lähellä rannikkoa haaksirikkoutuneen aluksen merimiehistä niiden, jotka ovat hyviä
uimareita, olisi ollut parempi pystyä uimaan vielä pitemmälle, kun taas huonojen uimarien
olisi ollut parempi luopua kokonaan uimisyrityksestä ja pysytellä hylyssä.
TT2/12 Mitä pitäisi sanoa tästä kaikesta? Useiden hyvin erillisten hevosen suvun lajien
nähdään saavan yksinkertaisen muuntelun kautta raitoja jalkoihinsa raitoja kuten seepralla
tai lapoihinsa kuin aasilla. Hevosella tämä taipumus on vahva silloin kun yksilön
harmaanruskea väri lähestyy suvun muiden lajien yleistä väritystä. Raitojen ilmaantuminen
ei kytkeydy minkäänlaiseen muodon muutokseen tai uuteen ominaisuuteen. Taipumus
raidallisuuteen on vahvin kaikkein erilaisimpien lajien risteytymien välillä. Kun
tarkastellaan kyyhkysrotuja, havaitaan niiden kaikkien polveutuvan sinertävästä kyyhkystä
(mukaan lukien kaksi tai kolme alalajia tai maantieteellistä rotua), jolla on tiettyjä juovia ja
muita tuntomerkkejä. Kun jokin rotu muuttuu yksinkertaisen muuntelun kautta
sinisävyiseksi, ilmaantuvat nämä juovat ja muut merkit säännönmukaisesti uudelleen, mutta
ilman muodon tai mudien ominaisuuksien muutoksia. Kun vanhimpia ja puhtaimpia rotuja
risteytetään, on sinisellä värillä sekä juovilla ja merkeillä voimakas taipumus ilmaantua
uudelleen risteymissä. Olen esittänyt, että todennäköisimmän hypoteesin mukaan hyvin
vanhakantaisten ominaisuuksien ilmaantuminen uudelleen johtuu peräkkäisten sukupolvien
Appendix 2: Excerpts from the new translation
nuorten yksilöiden taipumuksesta palauttaa tuo kauan kateissa ollut ominaisuus, ja
tuntemattomista syistä tämä taipumus pääsee joskus voitolle. Useilla hevosen suvun lajeilla
juovat ovat joko selvempiä tai yleisempiä nuorilla yksilöillä kuin vanhoilla. Jos vuosisatoja
puhtaina säilyneitä kyyhkysrotuja kutsuttaisiin lajeiksi, niin kuinka täsmälleen
vastaavanlainen tapaus se olisikaan hevosen suvun kanssa! Uskaltaudun luottavaisesti
katsomaan tuhansien ja tuhansien sukupolvien taakse, ja näen kesyhevosen ja aasin,
kulaanin, kvaggan ja seepran yhteisen kantalajin, joka on juovikas kuin seepra, mutta ehkä
muuten rakenteeltaan toisenlainen, ja se on saattanut polveutua yhdestä tai useammasta
villistä lajista.
TT2/13 Samalla laitoin samaan paikkaan F. flava –lajin pesän palasen, niin että pesän
rakennusaineista vielä roikkui näitä pieniä keltaisia muurahaisia. Tätäkin lajia otetaan joskus
harvoin orjiksi, kuten Smith on kuvaillut. Ollakseen niin pienikokoinen se on hyvin rohkea
laji, ja sen on nähty hyökkäävän hurjasti toisia muurahaisia vastaan. Kerran löysin
yllätykseni itsenäisen F. flava –yhdyskunnan kiven alta vieressään orjia ottavan F.
sanguinean pesä. Kun olin vahingossa häirinnyt kumpaakin pesää, pikkumuurahaiset
hyökkäsivät isojen naapuriensa kimppuun ilhmeen rohkeasti. Minua kiinnosti varmistaa,
kykenikö F. sanguinea erottamaan F. fuscan kotelot, joita ne yleensä ottavat orjikseen,
pienen ja hurjan F. flavan koteloista, joita ne harvoin kaappaavat. Oli selvää, että F.
sanguinea erotti ne heti. On nähty, kuinka innokkaasti ja välittömästi ne kaappasviat F.
fuscan koteloita, mutta kohdatessaan F. flanvan koteloita tai edes maata niiden pesästä taas
ne olivat kovin kauhuissaan ja pakenivat nopeasti. Noin neljännestunnin kuluttua, kun
kaikki pienet keltaiset muurahaiset olivat ryömineet matkoihinsa, F. sanguineat rohkaisivat
itsensä, ja kantoivat kotelot pois.
TT2/14 Ottaen huomioon ohuen vahakerroksen taipuisuuden, sen molemmilla puolilla
työskentelevien mehiläisten ei mielestäni ollut mitenkään vaikea havaita, milloin ne olivat
jyrsineet vahan sopivan ohueksi, ja sitten lopettaa työnsä. Olen havainnut tällaisissa
kennostoissa, että mehiläiset eivät aina onnistu työskentelemään täsmälleen samaa vauhtia
vastakkaisilla puolilla, sillä olen löytänyt juuri aloitetun kennon pohjasta puolivalmiita
suunnikkaita. Ne ovat hiukan koveria siltä puolelta, jossa oletan mehiläisten kaivaneen liian
nopeasti ja kuperia vastapuolelta, jossa mehiläiset olivat työskennelleet hitaammin. Yhdessä
tapauksessa, kun näin oli ilmiselvästi käynyt, laitoin kennon takaisin pesään ja annoin
mehiläisten jatkaa työtään vähän aikaa, ennen kuin jälleen tutkin kennon. Havaitsin, että
suunnikas oli nyt täysin tasainen. Suunnikkaan ohuuden vuoksi oli täysin mahdotonta, että
se olisi voinut johtua kuperan puolen jyrsimisestä. Luulen, että tällaisessa tapauksessa
mehiläiset vastakkaisissa kennoissa työntävät ja taivuttavat taipuisaa ja lämmintä vahaa
(mikä on helppoa, olen itse kokeillut) oikeaan asemaansa kennojen väliin ja samalla
ohentavat sitä.
TT2/15 Kennojen rakentamistavan ymmärtämistä näyttää aluksi vaikeuttavan se, että
lukemattomat mehiläiset työskentelevät yhdessä. Yksi mehiläinen työskentelee vähän aikaa
yhdessä kennossa ja siirtyy sitten toiseen, jolloin – Huberin mukaan – jopa ensimmäistä
kennoa rakentaa parikymmentä mehiläistä. Pystyin osoittamaan tämän seikan peittämällä
Appendix 2: Excerpts from the new translation
yhden kennon kuusikulmaiset seinät tai kasvavan kennoston ulkoreunuksen, erittäin ohuella
kerrokselle sulatettua punaista vahaa. Joka kerta havaitsin, että mehiläiset levittivät värin
hienosti, kuten maalari siveltimellään, ottaen hiukkasittain värillistä vahaa siitä kohdasta,
johon se oli laitettu, ja työstäen sitä joka puolelle muodostuviin kennoihin. Rakennustyö
näyttää olevan eräänlaista monien mehiläisten välistä tasapainoilua, jossa kaikki seisovat
vaistomaisesti yhtä kaukana toisistaan ja pyrkivät rakentamaan ympyröiden välisiä seinämiä
korkeammiksi tai jättämään ne jyrsimättä. Oli todella kiinnostavaa havaita, että hankalissa
kohdissa, kuten kahden kennoston osan kohdatessa kulmittain, mehiläiset rikkoivat ja
rakensivat saman kennon uudelleen eri tavalla, palaten toisinaan aluksi hylkäämäänsä
muotoon.
TT2/16 Viittaavatko nämä mutkikkaat ja merkilliset säännöt siihen, että lajeilla olisi
hedelmättömyys myötäsyntyisenä ominaisuutena yksinkertaisesti lajien sekaantumisen
estämiseksi luonnossa? En usko, että näin on. Miksi monenasteista hedelmättömyyttä
esiintyy risteytystilanteissa, jos pitää kuitenkin olettaa, että on yhtä tärkeää estää kaikkia
lajeja sekaantumasta? Miksi hedelmättömyys vaihtelee luontaisesti saman lajin yksilöiden
kesken? Miksi jotkut lajit risteytyvät helposti mutta tuottavat hyvin hedelmättömiä risteymiä
kun toiset taas risteytyvät kovin vaikeasti mutta tuottavat kohtuullisen hedelmällisiä
risteymiä? Miksi vastavuoroisen risteytyksen tuloksissa on usein niin suuri ero samojen
kahden lajin välillä? Voidaan jopa kysyä, miksi risteymien tuotanto ylipäänsä sallitaan?
Lajeille on annettu erityinen voima tuottaa risteymiä, mutta sitten niiden lisääntyminen
pysäytetään eriasteisella hedelmättömyydellä, joka ei tarkkaan ottaen ole suhteessa niiden
vanhempien ensimmäisen polven risteytymisen mahdollisuuteen. Näyttää kaiken kaikkiaan
oudolta järjestelyltä.
TT2/17 Tarkasteltaessa hyvin erilaisia luonnonlajeja, kuten esimerkiksi hevosta ja tapiiria, ei
ole syytä olettaa niiden välillä koskaan olleen välimuotoja. Välimuotoja on ollut kummankin
lajin ja niiden yhteisen, tuntemattoman kantalajin välillä. Yhteinen kantalaji on muistuttanut
rakenteeltaan kovasti tapiiria ja hevosta, mutta se on poikennut muutamissa rakenteen
yksityiskohdissa huomattavasti kummastakin, ehkä jopa enemmän kuin hevonen ja tapiiri
poikkeavat toisistaan. Olisi siis kaikissa tällaisissa tapauksissa mahdotonta tunnistaa kahden
tai useamman lajin kantamuotoa, vaikka kantamuodon rakennetta vertailtaisiin tarkasti sen
muuttuneiden jälkeläisten rakenteisiin, ellei tiedossa olisi samalla miltei täydellistä
välimuotoketjua.
TT2/18 Kunkin seudun geologiset muodostumat ovat miltei aina ajallisesti epäsäännöllisiä,
eli ne eivät seuraa toisiaan välittömästi. Tutkin satojen mailien matkalta Etelä-Amerikan
rannikkoa, joka on viime aikoina kohonnut useita satoja jalkoja. Tuskin mikään seikka
hämmästytti minua enempää kuin se, ettei rannikoilla ollut niin laajoja viimeaikaisia
kerrostumia, että ne olsiivat säilyneet edes lyhyttä geologista ajanjaksoa. Pitkin koko
länsirannikkoa, jolla elää erikoista merieläimistöä, tertiäärikautiset kerrostumat ovat niin
niukkoja, etteivät ne todennäköisesti kykene säilyttämään todisteita useista peräkkäisistä
merieläimistöistä. Pienen miettimisen jälkeen ymmärtää, miksei Etelä-Amerikan kohoavalta
länsirannikolta löydy mistään paikasta viimeaikaisia tai tertiäärikautisia jäänteitä, vaikka
Appendix 2: Excerpts from the new translation
sedimenttitarjonnan täytyy olla suurta, kuten rantakallioiden valtavasta rapautumisesta ja
mutaisten jokivesien valumisesta mereen voi päätellä. Selitys on epäilemättä
rantavyöhykkeen kerrostumien jatkuva kuluminen pois sitä mukaan kuin ne hitaan ja
vaiheittaisen maan kohoamisen seurauksena nousevat rannikon aaltojen jauhettaviksi.
TT2/19 Toisen yleiskatsauksessa paljastuvan, perustavanlaatuisen tosiseikan mukaan
kaikenlaiset vapaan liikkumisen esteet liittyvät läheisesti eri alueiden välisiin lajistoeroihin.
Tämä nähdään maaeliöiden suuressa eroavaisuudessa Uuden ja Vanhan maailman välillä
lukuun ottamatta pohjoisia alueita, missä maamassat miltei kohtaavat ja missä aikoinaan
ehkä hiukan erilaisessa ilmastossa pohjoisen lauhkean vyöhykkeen lajisto pääsi liikkumaan
vapaasti, kuten arktinen lajisto nykyään. Näin todistaa myös se, että samoilla leveysasteilla
olevien Australian, Afrikan ja Etelä-Amerikan lajistot eroavat suuresti toisistaan. Nämä
maathan ovat niin eristyneitä toisistaan kuin mahdollista. Sama toistuu jokaisessa
maanosassa. Korkeiden ja yhtenäisten vuorijonojen ja aavikoiden eri puolilla ja toisinaan
jopa suurten jokien vastarannoilla on erilaista lajistoa. Vaikka vuorijonot, aavikot ja niin
edelleen eivät ole läpipääsemättömiä, eivät ne todennäköisesti ole niin pitkäaikaisia kuin
mantereita erottavat valtameret. Siten nämä erot ovatkin paljon vähäisempiä kuin
mantereiden väliset erot.
TT2/20 Ei voida väittää, etteivät eliöt muuntelisi luonnontilassa tai että muuntelun määrä
aikojen kuluessa olisi rajallinen. Mitään selvää eroa ei voida vetää lajien ja selvärajaisten
muunnosten välille. Risteytetyt lajit eivät ole säännönmukaisesti hedelmättömiä ja
muunnokset hedelmällisiä, eikä hedelmättömyys ole luomisessa annettu erityisominaisuus.
Usko lajien muuttumattomuuteen oli miltei välttämätön niin kauan kuin maailman historiaa
luultiin lyhyeksi. Nyt kun on saatu parempi käsitys ajan kulumisesta, ollaan ihan liian
valmiita perusteettomasti uskomaan geologisen todistusaineiston niin täydelliseksi, että sen
pitäisi antaa meille selvät todisteet lajien muuttumisesta, jos sitä olisi todella tapahtunut.